Quebec City Mosque Terrorist Attack

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Is your argument that because bigotry exists across multiple religions, ethnic groups etc, that we should not fight any of it?  Because you seem to be arguing against those who have an issue with the way women are treated in Islam but not presenting any thoughts on combating it.

Banning the Niqab was a real solution.  The fact there was so much pushback tells us that its a growing segment of a radical sub-section because there is virtually no support for the Niqab within traditional Muslim countries.  Its used as a punishment and control method when "fundamentalists" rise to power.  Any thought that we should have shrugged it off because there are pockets of oppression of women among other groups is failing to address a real issue that exists in Canada now.

We're talking about immigrants coming here and then adopting a way of life that their vast majority of the people in their own country reject.  It cant be allowed.  And we know there are those wanting Sharia Law here.  Cannot be allowed. 

And when you identify tangible ways that women are oppressed in other ares or groups in Canada, Ill support putting a stop to that too.

We consistently fight against bigotry towards gays.  We dont say, well there's other bigotry out there.  We can fight bigotry on more than one front.  Saying no to radical Islam and the oppression of women on the grounds of religious freedom is not bigotry.  That's laughable.

You are gravely mistaken when you say there are those here who would like the imposition of Sharia law- this has been a fear-mongering rally cry for the bigots in Europe and America for several years and has absolutely no prospect of ever being enacted here. You do not need to have laws to restrict people- simple cultural or familial imprinting in childhood will do that and people will suspend their own happiness to submit to a set of bahaviours and/or dress code to belong and not be shunned. The doctors at Jonestown who gave the cyanide-laced Koolaid to their own children were not compelled by law- they chose to obey because they were raised to unquestioningly follow whatever the "authorities" told them to do. How do you differentiate between those who are compelled to follow certain dictates and thise who "choose" to obey out of fear of being ostracized by their families and cultural groups?

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, tracker said:

You are gravely mistaken when you say there are those here who would like the imposition of Sharia law- this has been a fear-mongering rally cry for the bigots in Europe and America for several years and has absolutely no prospect of ever being enacted here. You do not need to have laws to restrict people- simple cultural or familial imprinting in childhood will do that and people will suspend their own happiness to submit to a set of bahaviours and/or dress code to belong and not be shunned. The doctors at Jonestown who gave the cyanide-laced Koolaid to their own children were not compelled by law- they chose to obey because they were raised to unquestioningly follow whatever the "authorities" told them to do. How do you differentiate between those who are compelled to follow certain dictates and thise who "choose" to obey out of fear of being ostracized by their families and cultural groups?

So you're stating with conviction that no one in North America wants Sharia Law?

[Tracker]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

So you're stating with conviction that no one in North America wants Sharia Law?

No one with any credibility or authority. There are the nuts who want the laws in the US and Canada to be reflective of Biblical law to the exclusion of all other considerations, but these have a lot more influence than any Muslim. Steve Bannon, for example, Trump's appointment to the National Security Council has in the past called for a Christian Holy War on Islam.

[The Unknown Poster]

16 minutes ago, tracker said:

No one with any credibility or authority. There are the nuts who want the laws in the US and Canada to be reflective of Biblical law to the exclusion of all other considerations, but these have a lot more influence than any Muslim. Steve Bannon, for example, Trump's appointment to the National Security Council has in the past called for a Christian Holy War on Islam.

Syed Mumtaz Ali had no credibility?  The Arbitration Act which he fought to allow it was not an authority?

North America has many ties to Christianity and "God" was apart of the founding fathers' vocabulary.  We all make fun of Christian fundamentalists...its easy.  But there seems to be a weird protectionism when it comes to pushing back on Islamic fundamentalism. 

[Mark F]

Supreme Court of Canada
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s argument for the majority: This is the Law in Canada, like it or not.

Quote

 

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion. As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived‑as‑mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection. The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma.

 

Not what some that poll indicates a majority of people do or don't want.

 

If you can't find evidence of other religions oppressing women in Canada, you're not trying very hard. I won't look it up, I'll let unknown poster see if he can find anything.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Mark F

[Mark F]

This whole mosque massacre,   is deeply disturbing.

This can happen anywhere, to anyone anytime.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Mark F

[Atomic]

19 minutes ago, Mark F said:

If you can't find evidence of other religions oppressing women in Canada, you're not trying very hard. I won't look it up, I'll let unknown poster see if he can find anything.

I think you're missing the point.  No one is saying that other religions don't oppress women.

If your argument is "other religions oppress women so that makes it okay for Muslims to do it", then I don't see how that's any better.  Similarly if your argument is that we have to deal with every other religion's treatment of women before we can address Muslims treatment of women then that doesn't really make any sense either.

And finally, it's a pretty big stretch to say that Hutterite women wearing long skirts is the same or even close to the same as Muslims forcing women to cover their faces and bodies fully in a black veil.

[The Unknown Poster]

33 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Supreme Court of Canada
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s argument for the majority: This is the Law in Canada, like it or not.

Not what some that poll indicates a majority of people do or don't want.

 

If you can't find evidence of other religions oppressing women in Canada, you're not trying very hard. I won't look it up, I'll let unknown poster see if he can find anything.

 

I wasnt the one that made the argument so I have no desire to look anything up.  The reality is, oppression of women in other religions has no bearing on Islam.  This isnt a "yeah but" discussion.

Religious freedom isnt a catch all excuse.  Why should Canada be MORE fundamentally Islamic than Muslim majority nations that have rejected things like the Niqab?  Freedom of Religion cannot be used to over-rule the human rights of others.  Which is why Mormon parents who do not seek medical attention for their children face charges and lose their "freedom of religion" defenses.

[The Unknown Poster]

15 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I think you're missing the point.  No one is saying that other religions don't oppress women.

If your argument is "other religions oppress women so that makes it okay for Muslims to do it", then I don't see how that's any better.  Similarly if your argument is that we have to deal with every other religion's treatment of women before we can address Muslims treatment of women then that doesn't really make any sense either.

And finally, it's a pretty big stretch to say that Hutterite women wearing long skirts is the same or even close to the same as Muslims forcing women to cover their faces and bodies fully in a black veil.

Bang on.  I dont even get the argument.  Why would someone even make the argument in favour of the Niqab.  Unless Mark's an Islamic Fundamentalist which I tend to doubt.

[Mark F]

23 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Bang on.  I dont even get the argument.  Why would someone even make the argument in favour of the Niqab.  Unless Mark's an Islamic Fundamentalist which I tend to doubt.

 

You want to argue that there isn't oppression of women in other religions, but you admit you don't know and can't be bothered to have a look.

Quote

 Similarly if your argument is that we have to deal with every other religion's treatment of women before we can address Muslims treatment of women then that doesn't really make any sense either.

deal with? It's tolerated, for everyone except with Muslims. That's exactly why it's bigotry. You have it backwards atomic.

can't think of any other religions that have had their apparel, practices, views, customs, addressed by the Prime Minster of the country, can you?

 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Mark F

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

You want to argue that there isn't oppression of women in other religions, but you admit you don't know and can't be bothered to have a look.

As for me, I'll go with the Supreme court.

 

 

 

Where did I say there isn't oppression of women in other religions?

And what would that have to do with the oppression of women in Islam?  Are you a defender of radical Islam and do you believe Muslim women should have to veil themselves?

Edited February 1, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Atomic]

21 minutes ago, Mark F said:

You want to argue that there isn't oppression of women in other religions, but you admit you don't know and can't be bothered to have a look.

deal with? It's tolerated, for everyone except with Muslims. That's exactly why it's bigotry. You have it backwards atomic.

can't think of any other religions that have had their apparel, practices, views, customs, addressed by the Prime Minster of the country, can you?

No but I also can't think of any that are remotely comparable to the niqab.  Unless you think women wearing long skirts is the same thing.

[The Unknown Poster]

23 minutes ago, Mark F said:

 

You want to argue that there isn't oppression of women in other religions, but you admit you don't know and can't be bothered to have a look.

deal with? It's tolerated, for everyone except with Muslims. That's exactly why it's bigotry. You have it backwards atomic.

can't think of any other religions that have had their apparel, practices, views, customs, addressed by the Prime Minster of the country, can you?

 

 

Give examples...

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Syed Mumtaz Ali had no credibility?  The Arbitration Act which he fought to allow it was not an authority?

North America has many ties to Christianity and "God" was apart of the founding fathers' vocabulary.  We all make fun of Christian fundamentalists...its easy.  But there seems to be a weird protectionism when it comes to pushing back on Islamic fundamentalism. 

Mumtaz was one lawyer who promoted the concept that, in his words, any Sharia law would be watered-down and apply only to Muslims who chose to have internal disputes arbitrated according to Sharia law, and where there was a conflict between Sharia law and Canadian law, Canadian law would prevail. This false interpretation of Mumtaz' position has been repeatedly used by bigots to wrongly portray that there was a sizeable portion of Candian Muslims who were seeking to have Sharia law imposed on Canadians. Mumtaz was never in any position of authority, and besides, he has been dead for some 8 years now, so his influence is pretty limited at the moment.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, tracker said:

Mumtaz was one lawyer who promoted the concept that, in his words, any Sharia law would be watered-down and apply only to Muslims who chose to have internal disputes arbitrated according to Sharia law, and where there was a conflict between Sharia law and Canadian law, Canadian law would prevail. This false interpretation of Mumtaz' position has been repeatedly used by bigots to wrongly portray that there was a sizeable portion of Candian Muslims who were seeking to have Sharia law imposed on Canadians. Mumtaz was never in any position of authority, and besides, he has been dead for some 8 years now, so his influence is pretty limited at the moment.

So you admit you were wrong then?

[Tracker]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you admit you were wrong then?

If you cannot accept the rebuttal of your statement above, there is nothing I can do about that.

[Atomic]

Just now, tracker said:

If you cannot accept the rebuttal of your statement above, there is nothing I can do about that.

You said there was no one.  It's not TUP's fault you believe you can arbitrarily decide who is credible and who isn't.  To think that there is "no one" in Canada who wants Sharia law is just willfully ignorant.  That's like saying there are no racists in Canada.

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, tracker said:

If you cannot accept the rebuttal of your statement above, there is nothing I can do about that.

Ohhhh, rebuttal!

Okay...

For clarification purposes, arbitration using Sharia Law WAS going to happen.  The Premier of Ontario banned all religious arbitration to prevent it, fortunately.  Many Muslim's spoke out against it.  To wit (from the Globe & Mail):

Sharia law in Canada? Yes. The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. The arbitrations will deal with such matters as property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.

A few more examples of:

Efforts by Canadian Muslims to push for Sharia law at the municipal level have met more immediate success. Above is the scene at Valley Park Middle School, a public school in Toronto, Ontario in 2008 - a decade after Mark Harding took a stand against it.

Instead of just a classroom, a cafeteria becomes a mosque on Friday afternoons so that Muslim students can listen to an imam from a nearby mosque and pray towards Mecca. In the photo, the boys are praying in front of the girls, who are praying in front of the menstruating girls, who are forbidden to pray. The same scene is repeated at public schools across Canada today and many of their cafeterias only serve Halal food that have been sacrificed to Allah, the moon god.

By contrast, public schools in Canada provide neither facilities for the Christian students to gather and worship nor kosher food for the Jewish students.

Also since 2008, the municipal government of Edmonton in the province of Alberta has been denying men access to its swimming pools during certain hours of the week after Muslim women demanded opportunities to swim without men around, in accordance with the Shariah law.

 

But you say no one wants Sharia Law in Canada.

In a 2011 survey, 62% of the Muslims in Ottawa, the Canadian capital, expressed a desire to live under some form of Sharia law. The percentage is high, especially given their option to engage in Taqiyya. Over the next 20 years, Canada's Muslim population is projected to triple.

 

But those examples are from years ago.  Here's a "western" example from last summer:

INCOMING Prime Minister Theresa May has defended her position on Sharia Law on the eve of taking over as the leader of the Conservative party.  May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could "benefit a great deal" from Sharia teachings.

Now, sure, the UK is some crazy far away land and we'd never do anything remotely culturally similar to them right?  Let's hope not:

There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of our own legal system. 

Judgements handed down by the informal courts have no legal basis, but there are fears their presence means many Muslim women are not getting access to the justice they deserve.

 

All of this is Moot to the topic of the thread.  But you wanted to go down this road. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Oh and in case you're wondering what Taqiyya means:

Taqiyya (also spelled taqiya or taqiyyah) is lying to advance Islam and/or to prevent harm to Muslims (taqiyya literally means "prevention"). Muslims justify taqiyya from the Quran, other Islamic texts and the example set by Muhammad

[johnzo]

It is very sad that in a thread that's about a massacre of Muslims, we are busy judging Muslims.

[Atomic]

6 minutes ago, johnzo said:

It is very sad that in a thread that's about a massacre of Muslims, we are busy judging Muslims.

"We"?  You're not judging Muslims.  You're judging us.  Get off your high horse.  If we've learned anything from the past year, it's that you can't dispel people's fear of the unknown by demanding that they don't talk about it.

[johnzo]

Okay. Let me get more specific then, and respectfully suggest then that if TUP wants to get factual about Islam and Muslims and their attitudes in Canada, "billionbibles.com" might not be the best source to cite, seeing as how it's a site that's explicitly about converting Muslims to Christianity.

Their page on Halal meat is pretty hysterical -- one shouldn't eat Halal meat because it is slaughtered in the name of Allah and to eat it is idolatry. And their "Allah, the moon god" tick is weird and stupid.  Presumably, they also refer to Christmas as "Christmas, the rebranded Saturnalia."

The other unattributed cite that TUP uses is from Margaret Wente, who seems legit and who writes about sympathetic subjects.

Personally, I am much less concerned about the expansion of Sharia law in Canada than I am about the fact that a young white man was radicalized into murder-spree terrorism, and that is probably the source of my frustration here.

Edited February 1, 2017 by johnzo

[Atomic]

11 minutes ago, johnzo said:

Personally, I am much less concerned about the expansion of Sharia law in Canada than I am about the fact that a young white man was radicalized into terrorism, and that is probably the source of my frustration here.

They are both serious issues deserving of concern.  I don't think that imagining all Muslims or refugees as pure-hearted angels is any more helpful than imagining they are all terrorists.  The fact is that many Muslims share similar viewpoints to the so-called "alt-right", except you can replace the hatred of Muslims with the hatred of white people.  One thing I know is that forcing people to be politically correct only changes what they say, not how they feel.  Shutting down conversation is not the answer and only serves to further ostracize people, driving them to extreme acts of violence or voting for Trump.

[Mark H.]

https://mcccanada.ca/stories/hutterite-help-refugee-sponsorship-story

I don't know if this video will make a difference to some of the views I've read in this thread - but I'm going to post it anyway

Most of you are aware that I'm a Hutterite - it has never been a secret around here. The way we dress is simply our dress code - we prefer to keep things simpler. Our Muslim friends are just people who worship in a different way than we do.

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

59 minutes ago, johnzo said:

Okay. Let me get more specific then, and respectfully suggest then that if TUP wants to get factual about Islam and Muslims and their attitudes in Canada, "billionbibles.com" might not be the best source to cite, seeing as how it's a site that's explicitly about converting Muslims to Christianity.

Their page on Halal meat is pretty hysterical -- one shouldn't eat Halal meat because it is slaughtered in the name of Allah and to eat it is idolatry. And their "Allah, the moon god" tick is weird and stupid.  Presumably, they also refer to Christmas as "Christmas, the rebranded Saturnalia."

The other unattributed cite that TUP uses is from Margaret Wente, who seems legit and who writes about sympathetic subjects.

Personally, I am much less concerned about the expansion of Sharia law in Canada than I am about the fact that a young white man was radicalized into murder-spree terrorism, and that is probably the source of my frustration here.

I wasn't the one that decided to make an argument over Harpers ban on the Niqab or the excusing of Muslim oppression of women. And I repeatedly said this was off topic. 

But part of the problem is the denial of radical Islam as a problem creating a larger us vs them mentality which leads to anger and frustration on both sides. 

Mods can split the thread if they want to. 

But let's not argue over sources or credibility. I'll post remakes from a liberal source to be fair. 

but let's get back on topic. I'm not sure referring to this killer as "radicalized" is the right term. Doesn't that undermine what people think of radicalization?  Can't he just be a regular old racist violent loser?