POLL: Regarding Muslim population in Canada

[normanchateau]

Leafless -

Here's your post:

Are you actually suggesting suspected Arab Muslims should never be considered to be rounded up up and interned in the event of of Islamic based terrorist attacks?

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books.

Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?

That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ?

I answered your question, now you answer mine.

Who is talking about internment camps based on religion.

Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned?

[Argus]

OK, let's replace Gerry's question with a potentially more salient one:

"If there were a series of reported incidents of sexual abuse of Canadian children by Muslim preachers, should we round up ALL Muslim preachers in Canada?"

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population.

Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers?

It would depedn on how high the percentage, how severe the abuse, and what other options were available. I would like to point out that the damage to society caused by a Muslim preacher having sex with a teenage boy is less severe than that of a Muslim terrorist blowing up a building.

[normanchateau]

OK, let's replace Gerry's question with a potentially more salient one:

"If there were a series of reported incidents of sexual abuse of Canadian children by Muslim preachers, should we round up ALL Muslim preachers in Canada?"

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population.

Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers?

It would depedn on how high the percentage, how severe the abuse, and what other options were available.

And if I were to provide some hypothetical figures, e.g., thousands of victims, very severe abuse, 10% of Muslim preachers, would you answer with an unqualified yes or no?

[Leafless]

Leafless -

Here's your post:

Are you actually suggesting suspected Arab Muslims should never be considered to be rounded up up and interned in the event of of Islamic based terrorist attacks?

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books.

Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?

That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ?

I answered your question, now you answer mine.

Who is talking about internment camps based on religion.

Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned?

My response to "who is talking about internment camps" was relating to post #38:QUOTE(Michael Hardner @ Nov 6 2006, 09:09 AM)

Leafless - it's unclear from your post if you're referring to Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity, or merely people suspected of being Arab Muslims.

"This of course would be at the discretion of federal government.

No one currently knows what level of severity Canadians would be exposed to or the duration or continuation, concerning an Islamic terrorist attack or attacks.

Normally speaking if such a word is applicable in a situation like this Arab Muslims suspected of criminal activity probably would be primarily targeted."

Michael Hardner seems to be defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious believes and therefore it is unreasonable for Muslims to be rounded up and placed in internment camps.

This of course is ridiculous and like what I pointed out previously in this thread it would probably be the level of violence associated with the number of attacks that would determine if ALL Muslims should be placed in internment camps in Canada.

[Remiel]

Name one occassion where internment camps or concentration camps ended well for everyone involved. The whole premise of this thread is like trolling. There were almost 600,000 Muslims living in Canada in 2001, and the numbers have only been going up. How are you going to round up all of those people? Where are you going to put them? With what are you going to supply them? How much money is it going to cost? How much is it worth to you to round people up like this? A hand? A leg? Maybe a few internal organs, or a slice of your soul?

[normanchateau]

Michael Hardner seems to be defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious believes and therefore it is unreasonable for Muslims to be rounded up and placed in internment camps.

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs."

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner seems to be defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious believes and therefore it is unreasonable for Muslims to be rounded up and placed in internment camps.

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Hardners post #39 in this thread quotes:

"Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books.

Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the whole thing concerning Muslims and their violent terrorist attacks is that they are BASED on their religion, Islam.

So the fact is anyone being an Arab Muslim is considered a believer of Islam, as that is the definition of Muslim.

If Michael suggest Muslims being arrested and placed in internment camps is a bad thing simply because they are Muslim then in fact he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs" or he would not be saying such a thing about a religion that is NOT docile.

The only aspect that remains is to prove that any certain Muslim is a fanatic or extremist which is impossible to prove even in the best of time much less a time of extreme violence.

This is why it could be quite possible all Muslims could be rounded up and placed in internment camps as part of a national security effort if conditions presented no other viable option.

[normanchateau]

Michael Hardner seems to be defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious believes and therefore it is unreasonable for Muslims to be rounded up and placed in internment camps.

Was that on this thread or another thread? I couldn't find a single statement from Michael Hardner on this thread where he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Hardners post #39 in this thread quotes:

"Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books.

Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the whole thing concerning Muslims and their violent terrorist attacks is that they are BASED on their religion, Islam.

So the fact is anyone being an Arab Muslim is considered a believer of Islam, as that is the definition of Muslim.

If Michael suggest Muslims being arrested and placed in internment camps is a bad thing simply because they are Muslim then in fact he is "defending the notion that violence is excusable if it is attached to religious beliefs" or he would not be saying such a thing about a religion that is NOT docile.

The only aspect that remains is to prove that any certain Muslim is a fanatic or extremist which is impossible to prove even in the best of time much less a time of extreme violence.

This is why it could be quite possible all Muslims could be rounded up and placed in internment camps as part of a national security effort if conditions presented no other viable option.

Where in the Koran is it written that Muslims must engage in violent terrorist attacks?

[southerncomfort]

It says the infidel must be killed

It basically says anyone who denies Islam is an infidel. And if they do not comply completely with Islamic teachings MUST be killed. Westerners should keep this in mind. It is the basis for killing people who either leave Islam, or for preaching Christianity. Its these verses the radicals believe in and act on, theres lots more.

Q 9:5

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

VI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.

This ones kinda catchy

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

Q 4:34

[normanchateau]

It says the infidel must be killed

It basically says anyone who denies Islam is an infidel. And if they do not comply completely with Islamic teachings MUST be killed. Westerners should keep this in mind. It is the basis for killing people who either leave Islam, or for preaching Christianity. Its these verses the radicals believe in and act on, theres lots more.

Q 9:5

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.

IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper

VI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.

IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.

VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.

This ones kinda catchy

Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.

Q 4:34

Well this is very educational. I had no idea that these passages appeared in the Koran.

Given that the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has a constitution which states that the Koran is supreme and over-rides ALL other legislation, why are Canadians dying in Afghanistan? Whether they have elections or not, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a theocracy. No wonder in March of this year a man who converted to Christianity received the death sentence. Only his exile to Europe prevented that sentence from being carried out. Thank you Stephen Harper for extending the mission.

[southerncomfort]

Sure you knew they where there, you know too there are others that the moderates listen to. You also know we are in Afghanistan because we are part of NATO, ask the Liberals about that one and also to back up a more moderate gov't than the Taliban. At least under this gov't women can go to school and even run for politics. What they have now and what NATO is there for is to protect the freedom they have gained.

But you know all that your just trolling to bash Harper

[Argus]

OK, let's replace Gerry's question with a potentially more salient one:

"If there were a series of reported incidents of sexual abuse of Canadian children by Muslim preachers, should we round up ALL Muslim preachers in Canada?"

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population.

Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers?

It would depedn on how high the percentage, how severe the abuse, and what other options were available.

And if I were to provide some hypothetical figures, e.g., thousands of victims, very severe abuse, 10% of Muslim preachers, would you answer with an unqualified yes or no?

Depends. Possibly. You're giving me a theoretical situation with threadbare facts. I realize where you're heading, of course, in trying to suggest Catholic priests are dangerous, but the statistics and evidence about them don't support the suggestion.

[normanchateau]

OK, let's replace Gerry's question with a potentially more salient one:

"If there were a series of reported incidents of sexual abuse of Canadian children by Muslim preachers, should we round up ALL Muslim preachers in Canada?"

That would depend, would it not, on whether the sexual abuse by Muslim preachers was extraordinarily high as compared to the general population.

Let's suppose it were extraordinarily high. Would that justify rounding up ALL Muslim preachers?

It would depedn on how high the percentage, how severe the abuse, and what other options were available.

And if I were to provide some hypothetical figures, e.g., thousands of victims, very severe abuse, 10% of Muslim preachers, would you answer with an unqualified yes or no?

Depends. Possibly. You're giving me a theoretical situation with threadbare facts. I realize where you're heading, of course, in trying to suggest Catholic priests are dangerous, but the statistics and evidence about them don't support the suggestion.

Thanks for acknowledging that an unqualified yes or no would not be forthcoming. This allows us both to move on to more productive topics.

[Michael Hardner]

To clarify - I didn't mean to say that criminals should be excluded from incarceration because they belong to a religion. I meant to say that it's wrong to imprison people solely due to their religion.

But I think you knew that.

[betsy]

Leafless -

Here's your post:

Are you actually suggesting suspected Arab Muslims should never be considered to be rounded up up and interned in the event of of Islamic based terrorist attacks?

Internment camps based on religion is a bad idea in my books.

Do you think that arresting people solely on the basis of their 'suspected religion' is a good idea ?

That is, Italians, and swarthy types could be arrested based on how they look ?

I answered your question, now you answer mine.

Who is talking about internment camps based on religion.

Betsy is. The question was should all Muslims be interned?

Well apparently there were other internments that had happened in the past, according to M. Dancer.

So my answer to that is another question (since this topic was partly inspired by the internment of the Japanese), were ALL Germans, all Ukrainians, all Japanese interned during those respective times?

[betsy]

And if I were to provide some hypothetical figures, e.g., thousands of victims, very severe abuse, 10% of Muslim preachers, would you answer with an unqualified yes or no?

Is that situation supposed to get the whole nation in a STATE OF EMERGENCY?

The simplest solution to that is just for parents to stop sending their children to Muslim preachers if they are being sexually abused! End of the problem! Why do they all have to be interned?

Now, if the Muslim preachers start bombing places to create chaos in our cities.... for whatever reasons they may have, including the deisre to sodomize or molest children...now, that is a different story.

Maybe internment will not be all what we'll be debating about then....debate will also include turning them into eunichs!

Please, refer to the title of the topic...the exact scenario that is being assumed.

[betsy]

Name one occassion where internment camps or concentration camps ended well for everyone involved. The whole premise of this thread is like trolling. There were almost 600,000 Muslims living in Canada in 2001, and the numbers have only been going up. How are you going to round up all of those people? Where are you going to put them? With what are you going to supply them? How much money is it going to cost? How much is it worth to you to round people up like this? A hand? A leg? Maybe a few internal organs, or a slice of your soul?

Excuse me, can you explain how this thread can be likened to trolling?

[betsy]

It may seem laughable and ridiculous to say that internment does not have to mean the interned group are automatically enemies....and that it is more for their own safety.

When Dachau opened in 1933, internees and their relatives were told that they were there "for their own safety".

They lied. Or things got out of hand. Or it was poorly planned. Etc..,

That was then. We should've learned from those mistakes by now.

In this day and age, when the world is really keeping tabs on abuses against humanity....and most civilized nations are trying to comply, chances are, internment wouldn't be like that from the past. Most likely, independent observers will be around to monitor the conditions of, and treatment given to interns.

[geoffrey]

I'm a pretty strict law and order type, but I honestly can't comprehend that people are discussing internment of a race in this country. It's disgusting.

Arrest the terrorists, kill them if you wish, spy on them if need be. But locking someone up because of their genetics is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

I admit that an Arab is more likely to be a terrorist... but it's hardly a ratio where I'd expect that intern an entire segement of our population. What about non-arab Muslims? Many aren't visibly Muslim... like Zidane for example. Would they have to wear a big red cresent in the streets?

Don't be ridiculous, internment? I really can't believe it.

[betsy]

There were almost 600,000 Muslims living in Canada in 2001, and the numbers have only been going up. How are you going to round up all of those people? Where are you going to put them? With what are you going to supply them? How much money is it going to cost? How much is it worth to you to round people up like this? A hand? A leg? Maybe a few internal organs, or a slice of your soul?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't feasible at all due to the numbers...and thus, maybe would never even be considered at all.

[geoffrey]

There were almost 600,000 Muslims living in Canada in 2001, and the numbers have only been going up. How are you going to round up all of those people? Where are you going to put them? With what are you going to supply them? How much money is it going to cost? How much is it worth to you to round people up like this? A hand? A leg? Maybe a few internal organs, or a slice of your soul?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't feasible at all due to the numbers...and thus, maybe would never even be considered at all.

It isn't feasible because it's morally bankrupt.

[betsy]

It is a very disturbing thought. Whether you believe me or not, I feel uncomfortable discussing it like this...for indeed, we are talking of a lot of innocent people having their lives altered and disrupted.

But I have put myself exactly in the scenario given (see poll question)...and tried to weigh the pros and cons...thinking of and from both sides.

I think leaders of yesteryears had grappled with the same unease....weighing and pondering. And I am sure we also had liberal-thinkers and lefties then who had protested and fought against internmenship of the Japanese, the Germans etc..,

But in the end.....I guess something had made those leaders to decide and do it anyway. Maybe what's good for the nation as a whole outweigh the others.

[betsy]

There were almost 600,000 Muslims living in Canada in 2001, and the numbers have only been going up. How are you going to round up all of those people? Where are you going to put them? With what are you going to supply them? How much money is it going to cost? How much is it worth to you to round people up like this? A hand? A leg? Maybe a few internal organs, or a slice of your soul?

Maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't feasible at all due to the numbers...and thus, maybe would never even be considered at all.

It isn't feasible because it's morally bankrupt.

Maybe.

[geoffrey]

It is a very disturbing thought. Whether you believe me or not, I feel uncomfortable discussing it like this...for indeed, we are talking of a lot of innocent people having their lives altered and disrupted.

But I have put myself exactly in the scenario given (see poll question)...and tried to weigh the pros and cons...thinking of and from both sides.

I think leaders of yesteryears had grappled with the same unease....weighing and pondering. And I am sure we also had liberal-thinkers and lefties then who had protested and fought against internmenship of the Japanese, the Germans etc..,

But in the end.....I guess something had made those leaders to decide and do it anyway. Maybe what's good for the nation as a whole outweigh the others.

Let say there is 600k Muslims in Canada, likely more. Maybe 2000-3000 are capable of terrorist action. If we wrongfully destroy the lives of 597000 Canadians, then we better be saving a greater number, which is unlikely.

That's the pro's and con's. The harm against an uninvolved Muslim is just as wrong as the harm against an uninvolved anything else. It's unacceptable to take someone's freedom on such a mass scale to support some security concept. It doesn't work, and wouldn't work.

If you wanted to turn them away at the border or something, ok. But once they are Canadian, I think it's ridiculous to intern them based on their religious beliefs, in it's essence it's very disturbing that someone would even think of it.

[betsy]

As for the Japanese, from what I understand...they were targetted and considered the "enemy" because of the Japanese belief that their emperor is "divine"...or like a god.

That during the war, the emperor had called out and announced that it is the duty of all Japanese, whether living in or out of Japan, to fight the enemies.

Btw, when you also think of the kamikaze pilots (suicide planes)...and their belief of their emperor....there is some sort of a similarity to Islam extremism. It is also based on religion.

Still, that doesn't make it right confiscating their properties and possessions.