Jump to content

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


West

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

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.

Debate with Muslim fanatics!!!!!!. Are you joking. Their belief is to obey or beheaded.  The ones who kidnap a teenage girl on street for bad hijab, they rape her in jail and then push her off the top of a building and they believe they have done their religious duty. You wish to debate with this bunch!!!!. 

You seem not fully aware of their beliefs and actions. Hopefully they won't find their way to Canada (some have already like the former police chief of Tehran who was part of the plot to murder Canadian Zahra Kazemi) but they must be deported back to the hellhole they come from and Trudeau government is not doing a good job of that. Trudeau, SEND THEM BACK. They take advantage of our democracy but don't believe in democratic values themselves.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a smaller ("insignificant" as they like to call it) insult to injury: throwing citizens no scratch, residents dough at some figurehead appointed on a whim is firmly becoming the main approach to most complex problems of the modern society. Will it work? Can it? Who's interested to guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not speaking about Iran.  I know of course they do not have democracy or freedom speech in those kind of countries.  I was referring to Canada where we still have a certain degree of freedom of speech and must defend it.

As mentioned they seem to have found their way in and Trudeau government is doing nothing about it. Also I don't believe fanatics in Canada are any different than fanatics in Iran or elsewhere if God forbid somehow they gain power they will do the same.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

As mentioned they seem to have found their way in and Trudeau government is doing nothing about it. Also I don't believe fanatics in Canada are any different than fanatics in Iran or elsewhere.

That is true, but don't forget we live in a democracy which means we are supposed to have basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion which must be respected as long as we don't break the law.  

The government let them in and we have to live with it.  But we should still defend our freedom of speech for everyone.  The liberals want to control speech but we must resist that using reasoning.  Sometimes you cannot reason with fanatics.   If they break the law, throw them in jail for a long time or deport them.  The government should be screening people very carefully before they are allowed into the country.  This was not done.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

As mentioned they seem to have found their way in and Trudeau government is doing nothing about it. Also I don't believe fanatics in Canada are any different than fanatics in Iran or elsewhere if God forbid somehow they gain power they will do the same.

Yes, if certain extremists or supporters of the terrorist regime are found, they should be sent back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

which supposedly has basic freedoms

"Supposed" freedoms and real ones is not the same thing! Supposed freedoms become real ones only by the will of free citizens to make and keep their governments responsible and accountable at all times. Putin and Chen Un know, but Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take this example. An aboriginal from Amazon jungle comes to live in the greatest democracy, then claims the right to serve citizens, on their pay with nothing but a leaf on the interesting spot OK in summer. Because of their deeply held amazon believes and traditions. What? How's it any different? Only one democratic country would make a great multicultural conundrum out of this case. Is it a coincidence that it's also the only one with a third-world level pseudo-democratic quasi representation system?

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

As I said, the "left" also decries such violence, invariably carried out by extremists/the mentally ill.  Most people do, whatever their political beliefs.

Of course, we all do.  What matters is our view of the reasons for the physical response.  If such a response is understandable. then it is understandable in all cases.

Do I understand even wanting to do such things?  Not really, but I've never been personally affected by events that lead to such thinking.  I just draw the line at hurting someone, anyone, as a response to the actions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That is true, but don't forget we live in a democracy which supposedly has basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion which must be respected as long as they don't break the law.  

The government let them in and we have to live with it.  But we should still defend our freedom of speech for everyone.  The liberals want to control speech but we must resist that using reasoning.  Sometimes you cannot reason with fanatics.   If they break the law, throw them in jail for a long time or deport them.  The government should be screening people very carefully before they are allowed into the country.  This was not done.

I agree with the second part of your post but You are wrong on the first part. Democracy does not mean we have to let in criminals and mass murderers and unable to deport them. If this is your democracy I want dictatorship.

The government was either very wrong to let them in (they didn't do their job to investigate who they let in and check their background properly) or they misrepresented themselves. In either case there are more than enough reasons to deport them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I agree with the second part of your post but You are wrong on the first part. Democracy does not mean we have to let in criminals and mass murderers and unable to deport them. If this is your democracy I want dictatorship.

I think we agree on that.  I believe we should not let in questionable people.  This is not a question of democracy versus dictatorship.  Dictatorship is a disaster in every way.  We don't want that.  But I am glad we agree about the kind of people that should not be in Canada.  I think the great majority of people would agree with us on that.

Our system is however failing in many ways as I have said often on various issues.  For example, it looks like they are going to bring in people who hold Canadian citizenship but went to fight for ISIS or marry ISIS fighters and support them.  This is a serious problem.  A federal judge ruled Canada has to bring them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, herbie said:

She shouldn't have been appointed as she has a personal opinion?
Or because she has personal opinions that you not a Liberal, do not agree with?

 

She should not be appointed because she has opinions I do not agree with and most people would not agree with.  Did you read a previous post by I am Groot?  They point out a lot of very bad ideas she has.  Guess you have no idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I read his post and "most" people would disagree with him.

Accommodating one group does NOT impose it's values on others and every other thing he listed was a valid opinion held by many.
But if you've set your mind to stone that discouraging hatred is 'stirring things up" you've bought the program of those so right they're wrong.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's not qualified at all if she thinks this:

...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.

That would actually make her certifiable.

 

If she thinks this:

She’s argued in favour of Muslim prayer rooms in schools,

I would say that issue is debatable, and ask her for her views on the segregation of sexes in schools, and the teaching of women's rights and gay rights in schools vs parental rights to oversee a child's education.

Does anyone know what her views are on those issues?  Are they on record?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

She wrote that? 

It's from I am Groot's post in this thread:

5 hours 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

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is moderate Islam? How can moderate Muslims refute the radical exegesis of the Quran and Sunnah? If an exposition of moderate Islam does not address or answer radical exegeses, is it really of any value to quash Islamic extremism? If the answer lies in a simple rejection of Quranic literalism, how can nonliteralists make that rejection stick, and keep their children from being recruited by jihadists by means of literalism? Of course, as I have pointed out many times, traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...