Trudeau hires some lefty loon to combat "Islamophobia" (whatever that means)

[CITIZEN_2015]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The way I interpret Trudeaus' appointment is to oppose or discourage hatred of Muslims and oppose any form of violence or hateful behavior.  I think that is fair enough because there have been a number of hateful terrorist attacks and a number of hateful actions against Muslims and their places of worship.  So it is reasonable to discourage that behavior.   I don't see it as meaning one must accept Islamic beliefs or the Quran.  But they should have the freedom to practice their religion peacefully just as anyone else in a free country.

I am of course strictly against violence against anyone or any group. Keep in mind that a minority of Muslims have done their part of hate and terrorism too. Yes they have the right to practice their religion peacefully but they have no right to try to impose it on others or come here and try to change our way of life if they do they should be kicked out.

Edited February 2, 2023 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is not to my mind but the difference is one disliking or hating the ideology and the latter is disliking or hating the person who believes in that ideology.

Oh, I see.  I don't think there's a difference, personally.  Ot at least, both are worthy of criticism and disdain.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The way I interpret Trudeaus' appointment is to oppose or discourage hatred of Muslims and oppose any form of violence or hateful behavior.  I think that is fair enough because there have been a number of hateful terrorist attacks and a number of hateful actions against Muslims and their places of worship.  So it is reasonable to discourage that behavior.   I don't see it as meaning one must accept Islamic beliefs or the Quran.  But they should have the freedom to practice their religion peacefully just as anyone else in a free country.

Not too often I agree with you on here but that says it well.  No-one should be forced to accept the religious beliefs of another, and no-one should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs due to the beliefs of another.  Religious or non religious.

That said, criticism of the lot of them should be allowed, and even encouraged where appropriate.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Quebec is such a strange place. You’d think politicians there would tread carefully on this issue after the Quebec City massacre but they just can’t resist riling up the tribe. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, I see.  I don't think there's a difference, personally.  Ot at least, both are worthy of criticism and disdain.

 

There is a distinct difference. In my view it is okay to say Down with Islamic Republic but it is not okay to say death to Muslims.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

There is a distinct difference. In my view it is okay to say Down with Islamic Republic but it is not okay to say death to Muslims.

Right, but that's the first time anyone mentioned "death".

In my view, if a religion has primitive and barbaric tenets it is okay to criticize both the religion for those tenets, and any member of the religion who believes in and acts, or supports acts, based on those tenets.

So, down with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and down with any Pakistani peasant who thinks acts of blasphemy or homosexuality should be punished.

Edit>  And of course, in the spirit of the thread, down with any Canadian who supports either.

Edited February 2, 2023 by bcsapper

[CITIZEN_2015]

56 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Right, but that's the first time anyone mentioned "death".

In my view, if a religion has primitive and barbaric tenets it is okay to criticize both the religion for those tenets, and any member of the religion who believes in and acts, or supports acts, based on those tenets.

So, down with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and down with any Pakistani peasant who thinks acts of blasphemy or homosexuality should be punished.

Edit>  And of course, in the spirit of the thread, down with any Canadian who supports either.

I was just giving examples to clarify my point not that they are widely used.

No I believe people can believe in what they wish. This is freedom of thought. I don't agree with them and I won't socialize with them but I don't believe they should be punished for what they believe in. We stand for it. However, if they try to act on that belief then there is a big problem and in my view they should be punished according to the severity of their act.

ps - Please don't use Iran in the same sentence as Islamic Republic. The hated murderous Islamic Republic does not represent Iran or Iranians or many claim they don't even represent those who still remain Muslim in Iran. They are a regime imposed by coup and the nation of Iran is united in their goal to get rid of this barbaric regime with barbaric ideology in a women-led revolution currently in progress,

Edited February 2, 2023 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

No I believe people can believe in what they wish. This is freedom of thought. I don't agree with them and I won't socialize with them but I don't believe they should be punished for what they believe in. We stand for it. However, if they try to act on that belief then there is a big problem and in my view they should be punished according to the severity of their act.

Again right, but we're talking about criticism here aren't we?   A person can believe what they wish.  They can think blasphemy is a crime that should be punished.  They can think a woman should not be allowed outside with her hair showing.  It doesn't have to be just about religion.  They can think the holocaust never happened.  They can think one race is superior to another.  They can think homosexuality is obscene.  They can think heterosexuality is obscene.

They have the right to believe those beliefs, and they have the right to express those beliefs.  As you say, only once they act on those beliefs should they be sanctioned.

But prior to that, while they are still in expression only mode, others have the right to express their belief that they are a*******s.

When it comes to Islam, that is not Islamophobia, or Muslim phobia, to use your term.

Edited February 2, 2023 by bcsapper
There's always a typo.

[CITIZEN_2015]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Again right, but we're talking about criticism here aren't we?   A person can believe what they wish.  They can think blaphemy is a crime that should be punished.  They can think a woman should not be allowed outside with her hair showing.  It doesn't have to be just about religion.  They can think the holocaust never happened.  They can think one race is superior to another.  They can think homosexuality is obscene.  They can think heterosexuality is obscene.

They have the right to believe those beliefs, and they have the right to express those beliefs.  As you say, only once they act on those beliefs should they be sanctioned.

But prior to that, while they are still in expression only mode, others have the right to express their belief that they are a*******s.

When it comes to Islam, that is not Islamophobia, or Muslim phobia, to use your term.

Yes I agree. I don't think criticizing any ideology whose actions for example include discriminates against women or is forced or hates is phobia. I have done so many times myself. I have attacked the Islamic Republic or Taliban in Afghanistan for the violent backward barbaric ideology that is based on discrimination, hate, murder, torture, execution. The only issue here is that some may believe this does not correctly represent any particular religion so may regard attacking the religion itself which they believe in and they believe is falsely represented by a bunch of terrorists may be offensive or phobia and may cause act of random violence against those who look like believers but may themselves completely disagree with those principals.

Edited February 2, 2023 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Yes I agree. I don't think criticizing any ideology whose actions for example include discriminates against women or is forced or hates is phobia. I have done so many times myself. I have attacked the Islamic Republic or Taliban in Afghanistan for the violent backward barbaric ideology that is based on discrimination, hate, murder, torture, execution. The only issue here is that some may believe this does not correctly represent any particular religion so may regard attacking the religion itself which they believe in and they believe is falsely represented by a bunch of terrorists may be offensive or phobia and may cause act of random violence against those who look like believers but may themselves completely disagree with those principals.

Yes, one has to be pretty specific with one's criticism.

But, in fairness, that should apply to all criticism.

[I am Groot]

On 1/31/2023 at 11:07 PM, herbie said:

Yeah I know you think shootings in Mosques and running them down on sidewalks was ll leftist media lies. No problem, it's all good, eh?

How come whenever a Muslim murders people the Left falls all over each other to shriek at the world about how those are just a small minority and not the least bit indicative of the Muslim population in general. But whenever an act of violence or terrorism is committed AGAINST Muslims that's a general indictment of our entire society and we all need to bow our heads in shame and accept our guilt?

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The way I interpret Trudeaus' appointment is to oppose or discourage hatred of Muslims and oppose any form of violence or hateful behavior.  I think that is fair enough because there have been a number of hateful terrorist attacks and a number of hateful actions against Muslims and their places of worship. 

Also against Christians and their places of worship but Trudeau hasn't said a word about that, let alone appointed any special 'representative'.

[West]

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How come whenever a Muslim murders people the Left falls all over each other to shriek at the world about how those are just a small minority and not the least bit indicative of the Muslim population in general. But whenever an act of violence or terrorism is committed AGAINST Muslims that's a general indictment of our entire society and we all need to bow our heads in shame and accept our guilt?

It boils down to the fact they have no real legitimate policy and resort to grievance politics

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

but they have no right to try to impose it on others

Don't forget people still have the right to freedom of expression in Canada.  We used to see Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons coming to the door to try to get converts or spread their message.  That is part of freedom of expression  and freedom of religion which is a fundamental right in Canada.   Nobody is having a religion "imposed" on them by people handing out tracts or trying to talk to people.  You have the freedom to decline to discuss anything with them.  Freedom of expression is all about having the freedom to speak your beliefs, whether true or false.  We do that in the political realm all the time.  People do that in their social circles constantly.  That is what life is all about.  You are free to believe what someone else says or not believe it.  But we don't try to silence other people from speaking on certain topics if that is their desire.  That is what they do in totalitarian states or dictatorships.  We don't do that here because that would be a violation of basic freedoms.  We cannot interpret people speaking their truth or belief as "imposing".  That looks like trying to stop people from speaking.  

The only exception to this principle would be people in positions of authority should not be using their positions to impose their religion on people who must deal with them as in the debate over bill C21 in the Quebec secularism law.  That is why I agree with the law.  I would view wearing religious symbols when you are in a position of authority, such as a school teacher, as imposing some religion on the students and should not be allowed. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

Why we don't like her? Terry Glavin is reasonably succinct on that point. She represents that sneering progressive attitude that despises Canada, its traditions, values and history, and says we're all racists and 'settlers'. Why would we not have contempt for such a person.

As an activist and frequent opinion-pages contributor, Elghawaby has adopted all the respectable standpoints with just the right degree of transgressive élan, rarely too strident or too squishy. She called for removing the Queen as Canada’s head of state and dismissed Canada Day as a festival of “Judeo-Christian storytelling.” She’s been gushing in her praise for Trudeau and backs the Trudeau government’s extremely contentious moves to regulate commentary on the internet. She’s argued in favour of Muslim prayer rooms in schools, and once blasted the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper as having done more harm to the image of Canadian Muslims than al-Qaida’s atrocities in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

What the point of her appoint is.

The whole thing is a mess, and it’s as just as jumbled and fractious as Elghawaby’s appointment, which is as Trudeau described it — to “build bridges.” But it’s to build the Liberal party’s bridges to Muslim voters.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/amira-elghawaby-being-used-by-liberals-to-woo-muslim-votes

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How come whenever a Muslim murders people the Left falls all over each other to shriek at the world about how those are just a small minority and not the least bit indicative of the Muslim population in general. But whenever an act of violence or terrorism is committed AGAINST Muslims that's a general indictment of our entire society and we all need to bow our heads in shame and accept our guilt?

That's true.  I often think the same thing when the left excuses Antifa and BLM excesses based on the events to which they are responding.  It's the way many on the left work, I guess.

[Legato]

Phobia, an irrational fear of something. Therefore Islamophobia is a fear of Muslims. Anyone here frightened of Muslims?

[dialamah]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's true.  I often think the same thing when the left excuses Antifa and BLM excesses based on the events to which they are responding.  It's the way many on the left work, I guess.

I haven't seen that.  The "left" condemns violence, but understands why the violence occurs and looks for ways to eliminate root causes.

The "right" gets all emotional and doesn't think past condemning the entire group.

[West]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Phobia, an irrational fear of something. Therefore Islamophobia is a fear of Muslims. Anyone here frightened of Muslims?

Taking it one step further, is it irrational to be afraid of lunatics who strap bombs to themselves and walk into a crowd in the name of Allah?

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Why we don't like her? Terry Glavin is reasonably succinct on that point. She represents that sneering progressive attitude that despises Canada, its traditions, values and history, and says we're all racists and 'settlers'. Why would we not have contempt for such a person.

As an activist and frequent opinion-pages contributor, Elghawaby has adopted all the respectable standpoints with just the right degree of transgressive élan, rarely too strident or too squishy. She called for removing the Queen as Canada’s head of state and dismissed Canada Day as a festival of “Judeo-Christian storytelling.” She’s been gushing in her praise for Trudeau and backs the Trudeau government’s extremely contentious moves to regulate commentary on the internet. She’s argued in favour of Muslim prayer rooms in schools, and once blasted the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper as having done more harm to the image of Canadian Muslims than al-Qaida’s atrocities in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.

What the point of her appoint is.

The whole thing is a mess, and it’s as just as jumbled and fractious as Elghawaby’s appointment, which is as Trudeau described it — to “build bridges.” But it’s to build the Liberal party’s bridges to Muslim voters.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/amira-elghawaby-being-used-by-liberals-to-woo-muslim-votes

I agree.  Well said.  Those are real reasons why she should not be appointed.  

[CITIZEN_2015]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Don't forget people still have the right to freedom of expression in Canada.  We used to see Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons coming to the door to try to get converts or spread their message.  That is part of freedom of expression  and freedom of religion which is a fundamental right in Canada.   Nobody is having a religion "imposed" on them by people handing out tracts or trying to talk to people.  You have the freedom to decline to discuss anything with them. 

Yes but if they wish to close the bars where boys and girls mixing or ban the sale of alcohol or force hijab on non-believers (even if their own family who have grown up in democracy) or criticize our way of life having freedom and equality then they have no right.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I haven't seen that.  The "left" condemns violence, but understands why the violence occurs and looks for ways to eliminate root causes.

The "right" gets all emotional and doesn't think past condemning the entire group.

If, after the Manchester Ariana Grande bombing, a bunch of distraught Mancunians had gone to a Muslim neighbourhood and set fire to a Mosque and a couple of Muslim owned businesses, would your reaction be to understand why the violence occured and looks for ways to eliminate root causes?

Maybe it would.  Not me though.

A killing in Michigan does not warrant burning and looting in Oregon, any more than the response in my example there is warranted.

Edited February 2, 2023 by bcsapper

[blackbird]

One of the problems is what does the word Islamophobia actually mean?   If it means one disagrees with the Islamic religion, the Quran, and Sharia Law, I guess many of us would be described as Islamophobic.  That's why the it was a poor choice to use that word and make it the centerpiece of policy by the Liberal government. 

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Yes but if they wish to close the bars where boys and girls mixing or ban the sale of alcohol or force hijab on non-believers (even if their own family who have grown up in democracy) or criticize our way of life having freedom and equality then they have no right.

The way to respond to those things in a democracy is to use reasoning why it should not be done.  Debate and discussion is how we operate in a democratic country.  That's why it is a dangerous path to try to silence people as some liberals and left want to do.

[myata]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Quebec is such a strange place.

Could it be Canada though? Take France. In France, they have a proportional system. In France, right wing parties have been increasing their share of vote. It tells, in a language, the message, mainstream parties something. To see and try to understand and react to. France is France, it's citizens are French not some holy angels from some ideal universe. And if majority of the citizens aren't comfortable with being served by someone in attire directly associated with most oppressive regimes on this planet, French parliament reacts to the will of French citizens and makes it a law of France. That's it. Matter closed.

Now, a simple, binary question: what could be terribly wrong with that picture? Who said it, why how, and proven in an open and transparent discussion that it makes some sense? Or would it be something deeply wrong with those who believe that they can take some abstract formula, without as much as understanding of what it actually means in the reality, and impose it on the society, just because they can, have no one to respond to, no checks, controls or reasonable limits? One reason only, the only one needed: because they can.

Edited February 2, 2023 by myata