POLL: Regarding Muslim population in Canada

[Rue]

According to the CATO institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis,  Policy No. 798 when studying immigration to the US:

 

1- foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015;

2- including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year;

3-the hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably- the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year,  the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is l 1 in 10.9 billion per year, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year.

In Canada we have had an attack in Edmonton by l person, the attack against soldiers in Quebec and the 1 in Ottawa with that lone gunman and the hate attack against the Mosque in Quebec City. So of these 3, 2 were said to have been done by those claiming to be Muslim and claiming that as their basis for doing it.

Does the risk then of terrorism go up simply because one takes in Muslims as immigrants? Well we know for example Amidyah Muslims came to Canada specifically because they were targets of Muslim terrorism in Pakistan by other Muslims. We know Ismaili Muslims shun terror and are very progressive and doing very well in all Western countries they have settled in and have 0% terrorism in their societies but have been targets of hate attacks by other Muslims. So to say those two groups are terrorist in any way makes no sense.

Studies have shown that when attacks are done by Muslim its usually Sunni Muslims then Shiite Muslims to no one's surprise but the percentage of Muslims who are in fact terrorist is not a logical or objective basis to say all Muslims are terrorists, in fact the exact opposite.

When we discuss Muslim immigration its true we tend to jump to the conclusion Muslims are more likely to be terrorist since the majority of terrorism attacks right now in the word do come from Muslims. What we do not say is that the vast majority of these terror attacks will kill Muslims though, in Muslim countries.

Of course when they do occur against non Muslims in Europe or the US the media pays attention but the on-going attacks in many African countries go unreported.

All that said when we discuss Muslim immigration we tend to believe if a Muslim is extremist or fundamentalist they are more likely to be a terrorist since Muslim terrorists when caught are not exactly modern or progressive but advocate fundamentalist Sunni or Shiite beliefs.

The question then becomes if Muslims are fundamentalist but not terrorist, are they a security risk in Canada, if so why...

I would argue fundamentalist beliefs of any religion including Islam are problematic in that they clash with fundamental rights as envisioned in s.2 of the Charter of Rights other than religious freedom and in particular they conflict with the rights of women, gays, or non Muslims to be treated as equals to Muslims in day to day life.

Fundamentalist Islam defines women as inferior, gays as sub-human infidels and spends over half the Koran defining non believers of Islam, i.e. kafir as unworthy, hardly a compatible system of belief in a country that claims to be tolerant of all.

In particular Islam calls for a war against all Jews using some very violent references and references that render Jews non human.

To pretend the Koran's passages on kafir are ignored by Muslims is just not true. It promotes hatred against Jews and it promotes very rigid views about sexuality, the role of women in society, gays, and non Muslims. 

If practiced in a modern, progressive reformed approach as do the Ismailis, or as the Amidyah do, its a very peaceful way of thought no different than progressive Christianity of Judaism.

So its a question of not asking who is MUSLIM but what KIND of Muslim people claim to be. When Citizen asks how to identify Muslims he has to understand like the Japanese, Italians, Germans during WW2, if identity in the sense of beliefs compatible with democracy can not be readily and practically identified, and terrorism becomes wide spread, security imperatives will trump civil rights. The notion the state will sit back while Muslim terrorism runs rampant and not bring ALL Muslims under scrutiny because it would be unfair is unrealistic. If a pattern of terrorism emerges with ANY group of people, innocent people in that group may find themselves swept up and detained no different than Japanese, Germans, Italians. This is what happens.

Comparing though this kind of phenomena with the rounding up of Jews during the holocaust is false. Jews,  and Roma (a.k.a. gypsies), were not arrested and placed in camps because they were terrorist. When Canada imprisoned thousands of innocent people, it did not gas them or torture them or use them as slave labour. Later on when Jjehova's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists were also rounded up, it was because they refused to swear an allegiance to Hitler and they too were gassed. No one in Canada was gassed and rounded up for being a 7th Day Adventist.

So I think its a false analogy to suggest to me as a Jew or any minority any state security action on a collective basis is automatically suspect as Nazi like. Rampant state powers that take away individual rights can quickly turn totalitarian in nature and abuse power yes. However its unrealistic to think states do not have an ethical responsibility to enforce certain laws in times of wide spread danger.

 

 

[jacee]

Omg

More Betsy hysterics.

Time to round up all the so called Christian evangelicals and make them assimilate into Canadian culture.

[Guest]

Well, Betsy's last contribution was 11 years ago, but if you want to round up Christian evangelicals and make them assimilate into Canadian culture, I'm okay with that.  I think everyone should assimilate.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

People say all kinds of things but groups like ISIS are in it for the money, the power and the sex. The others are in it for the same selfish motives as the Las Vegas shooter. They want to be a somebody, even posthumously. Just because they spout the words, doesn't mean they follow it. Remember the Templars? They raped and pillaged and yelled God Wills It, as they collected their gold.

And yet tens of thousands of people do this every year, around the globe. And we're supposed to accept that despite them all being Muslims and claiming what they do is in the name of Islam they're all lying? A lot of these people are suicidal, eager to die on behalf of Allah. They're not doing it for the money and power.

[Queenmandy85]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

And yet tens of thousands of people do this every year, around the globe. And we're supposed to accept that despite them all being Muslims and claiming what they do is in the name of Islam they're all lying? A lot of these people are suicidal, eager to die on behalf of Allah. They're not doing it for the money and power.

I am surprised and a little sceptical of the tens of thousands figure. You have two dozen in the 9-11 attacks, a half dozen to a dozen each, in the attacks in France, Belgium, England and Germany. 

Every once in a while, a group goes a little bit off the rails. Hindus massacre Muslims in the thousands, Buddhists massacre muslims, Christians massacred the entire population of Jerusalem, Soviet and Maoist atheists murdered tens of millions. On the day I was born, Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers.

The name of the religion has nothing to do with the act of terrorism. With the exception of the war between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, Islam has maintained a fairly peaceful existance. Its relationship with the west during the latter half of the twentieth century was quite peaceful. Did the theology of Islam change in 2001? Or is there another reason for the sudden surge of attacks for which religion of any label is merely and excuse.

[taxme]

10 hours ago, Rue said:

Start with outing yourself.

He mentioned it first that I am hiding yet he is the one that brought it up. I am still waiting for him to show us what I have asked of him. And why are you doing the same thing and hiding? Why don't you give us your real name, where you live, and phone number also? I know that you will not and because of?  You are just as much talk as he is also.  

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I am surprised and a little sceptical of the tens of thousands figure. You have two dozen in the 9-11 attacks, a half dozen to a dozen each, in the attacks in France, Belgium, England and Germany. 

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/the-list.aspx

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Every once in a while, a group goes a little bit off the rails. Hindus massacre Muslims in the thousands, Buddhists massacre muslims, Christians massacred the entire population of Jerusalem, Soviet and Maoist atheists murdered tens of millions. On the day I was born, Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers.

We're talking about today. I'm really not concerned with what happened thousands of years ago, or even decades ago.

17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The name of the religion has nothing to do with the act of terrorism. With the exception of the war between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims, Islam has maintained a fairly peaceful existance. Its relationship with the west during the latter half of the twentieth century was quite peaceful. Did the theology of Islam change in 2001? Or is there another reason for the sudden surge of attacks for which religion of any label is merely and excuse.

Islam never had a peaceful coexistence with anyone throughout its entire history up until the time when their military abilities fell behind that of those around them. You give Islam credit for not, say, trying to attack Europe in the last generation!? Seriously!? Islam threw itself against Europe again and again until they were no longer able to do so. Just as they threw themselves against the Indians, and against anyone not Muslim (not that they didn't make war on each other too). This is a religion whose origins were spread by the sword, and whose adherents took up that sword up until their enemies shot them down with guns. All that has changed in modern times is the relative ease of transportation and travel across the world. Fifty years ago it required a considerable amount of money to get from the middle east to Europe or North America. Now air travel is ubiquitous. Fifty years ago almost no Muslims lived in the West but then immigration was relaxed and now there are many. 

[jacee]

On 17/11/2017 at 12:55 PM, Argus said:

This is a religion whose origins were spread by the sword, and whose adherents took up that sword up until their enemies shot them down with guns.

Sounds like Christianity.

[marcus]

This topic and thread actually happened. 

Amazing.

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 11/15/2017 at 11:54 PM, taxme said:

Talk about hiding? How about you tell us all here your real name, where you live, and your phone number please? Don't just talk, do the walk. We await. 

This is stupid comment. My point was not to ask you or anyone to out themselves since the nature of forum is anonymity. What I was saying was that you take advantage of this fact and spread hate otherwise you cannot do in public where your identity is known.

Edited November 22, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

10 hours ago, jacee said:

Sounds like Christianity.

If Christianity was spread by the sword (or gun) it would have spread back through the middle east and everyone there would be a Christian now. Islam spread into the Middle East and took over former Christian lands by the sword, and kept pushing towards Europe until they were stopped by force of arms. They kept pushing into India and slaughtering Hindus until they were stopped and pushed back by force of arms. If Christians had the same mentality there'd be no more Muslim countries. They'd all have been conquered and converted by the sword back around WW2. 

[GostHacked]

On 11/16/2017 at 9:17 AM, Rue said:

In Canada we have had an attack in Edmonton by l person, the attack against soldiers in Quebec and the 1 in Ottawa with that lone gunman and the hate attack against the Mosque in Quebec City. So of these 3, 2 were said to have been done by those claiming to be Muslim and claiming that as their basis for doing it.

However all these people were born here. Not immigrants. Your numbers/notion might work better in the US, but seems to fail for Canada. That means something else needs to be considered.

[PIK]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

However all these people were born here. Not immigrants. Your numbers/notion might work better in the US, but seems to fail for Canada. That means something else needs to be considered.

But killed in the name of Islam. Islam must go.You look at M-103, it is supposed to be about protecting people, but the word used ,is islamophobia, That is protection of the religion,not people. Get rid of islam we get rid of most problems.

Edited November 28, 2017 by PIK

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

However all these people were born here. Not immigrants. Your numbers/notion might work better in the US, but seems to fail for Canada. That means something else needs to be considered.

The Edmonton guy was not born here.  He was a Somali refugee.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Goddess

[PIK]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

The Edmonton guy was not born here.  He was a Somali refugee.

Ans was he not deported from america?

[Goddess]

 

Quote

 

Who is Abdulahi Sharif?

According to documents provided to the police by the government of Alberta and obtained by Global News, Sharif is a Somali refugee who came to Canada in 2012. Initial information on the documents indicated he was sponsored by the federal government for one year.

But according to a spokesperson for the minister of Public Safety, Sharif presented himself at an official port of entry and then claimed asylum status. He was granted refugee status later that year.

 

Edmonton’s Catholic Social Services (CSS), which has worked with thousands of refugees over the past four decades, said it did not process the accused’s refugee application.

However, the organization did meet with Sharif in December 2014 to talk about work permits. CSS was not able to say what type of work he did.

“It was a very brief meeting, less than about 30 minutes,” communications manager Jason Gariepy said. “We don’t really have many details about that encounter because we did schedule a follow up three days later — which would have been Dec. 18, 2014 — and he didn’t show up for a follow-up meeting.

“Due to the volume of clients that we have, follow-up isn’t always possible on a case-by-case basis. So he didn’t show up and we considered the file closed.”

 

 

Look how easy it was for him to just disappear into the woodwork - just didn't show up for hearings in the US or Canada and neither country had enough time/resources to track him down.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/03/edmonton-terror-suspect-had-been-deported-form-us-in-2011.html

Quote

 

A statement from ICE spokesperson Lauren Mack issued Tuesday night said Sharif was transferred on July 15, 2011 into ICE custody at Otay Mesa Detention Center, a Californian prison.

He was then ordered in September 2011 to be deported to Somalia. The statement said that Sharif “waived his right to appeal that decision,” but was released from custody because he was unlikely to be removed from the U.S. in the near future.

Sharif was supposed to be deported on Jan. 21, 2012, according to ICE, but didn’t show up.

“Efforts by (San Diego ICE officials) to locate him were not successful,” the statement said.

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Goddess

[Rue]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

However all these people were born here. Not immigrants. Your numbers/notion might work better in the US, but seems to fail for Canada. That means something else needs to be considered.

Your response as usual is illogical. Whether a Muslim is born in Canada or comes to Canada was not my point. Their using their religion as justification for their religious beliefs was. The issue was not whether the person engaging in terror was born in Canada or elsewhere-its what motivated them.

You clearly did not understand the response. 

Now if you want to be irrational and argue a Muslim terrorist born in Canada is different than a Muslim terrorist who comes to Canada, knock yourself out.

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

Your response as usual is illogical. Whether a Muslim is born in Canada or comes to Canada was not my point. Their using their religion as justification for their religious beliefs was. The issue was not whether the person engaging in terror was born in Canada or elsewhere-its what motivated them.

You clearly did not understand the response. 

Now if you want to be irrational and argue a Muslim terrorist born in Canada is different than a Muslim terrorist who comes to Canada, knock yourself out.

Most of our terrorists are born in Canada and are not Muslim.

[?Impact]

Interesting poll results. We have 14 among our group that want to set up internment camps for 1.3 million people.

[Michael Hardner]

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Interesting poll results. We have 14 among our group that want to set up internment camps for 1.3 million people.

No - 9 out of 44.  5 are 'not sure'.  The nine people are allowed to vote just as you or I are.  They represent the failure of our system to inform and edify.  Anybody who advocates for internment should be interned.  That's a good test right there.

[Argus]

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - 9 out of 44.  5 are 'not sure'.  The nine people are allowed to vote just as you or I are.  They represent the failure of our system to inform and edify.  Anybody who advocates for internment should be interned.  That's a good test right there.

To be fair, I can envision circumstances (unlikely) where the government would take anti-democratic actions against the Muslim or other community. I don't see it ever getting into wholesale internment simply because there's too many of them. But if you look back the FLQ crisis I can certainly see the possibility of mass dragnets to sweep up Muslims were are considered sympathetic to terrorism, or simply fundamentalists.

I've said before that if we were beset by the kind of terrorism Israel is we would be one hell of a lot less politically correct and one hell of a lot more aggressive against whatever community was responsible.

I voted no, btw.

 

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

To be fair, I can envision circumstances (unlikely) where the government would take anti-democratic actions against the Muslim or other community. I don't see it ever getting into wholesale internment simply because there's too many of them. But if you look back the FLQ crisis I can certainly see the possibility of mass dragnets to sweep up Muslims were are considered sympathetic to terrorism, or simply fundamentalists.

Me too.  Such as the US banning Muslims from entering the country.  They already are treated differently by the security apparatus, let's face it.

 

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

I've said before that if we were beset by the kind of terrorism Israel is we would be one hell of a lot less politically correct and one hell of a lot more aggressive against whatever community was responsible.

The FLQ example is informative.  When the War Measures act was imposed, some police took liberties and arrested or detained people without cause.  

 

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

I voted no, btw.

I know.

[?Impact]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

When the War Measures act was imposed, some police took liberties and arrested or detained people without cause.

Kind of like the G20

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Kind of like the G20

Yes.  Our systems (education, healthcare, defence) are not sufficiently obliged to the people yet, for reasons. 

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - 9 out of 44.  5 are 'not sure'.  The nine people are allowed to vote just as you or I are.  They represent the failure of our system to inform and edify.  Anybody who advocates for internment should be interned.  That's a good test right there.

Exactly... except the part about interning those who advocate internment. The poll question was not particularly clear. How many attacks, how were they carried out and by whom.
I suppose at some point if a certain line gets crossed, some sort of action needs to be taken. But mass internment is unreasonable, rather I would expect the government to enact martial law and curfews for all.