Yet more problematic stuff

[L'Emmerdeur]

Be public about your contempt for Islam then.

Organize a 'draw Mohommad' contest at your local school.

Unless their funding would be at risk by wrongspeak.

Likely, there is no problem you guys can see with Islam creeping into law, starting Sharia courts in western countries, or claiming they are an oppressed minority to gather more legal support for their religion.

There are Sharia courts in the west. Go break their laws, if you don't believe they have teeth. If you can't find the particular laws in print, and want to see if Islam rules, check if you are free to draw Mohommad on public sidewalks, outside Mosques, Synagogues or churches. Write down results.

Your claims of 'Islamophobia laws' are shown to be false, so instead of acknowledging that you babble about how I'm supposed to do something. To what end? I've no use for Islam, and have stated my opinions on it more than once on this site, but apparently you'd like me to go out and try to antagonize Muslims. Feel free to do your own shit stirring if you think it's so important; I've better things to do than imitate the inane publicity stunts of the provocateur nitwits that you find so inspiring.

I suggest that you inform yourself about the realities of sharia-based arbitration in the UK. Perhaps then you'll be able to provide a trenchant critique of the system rather than just regurgitating rubbish you've picked up from sources like Breitbart. The arbitration pertains only to people who've agreed to abide by the rulings (sharia councils have no legal standing on their own), and all rulings have to conform to UK law, without exception. 'The UK's Sharia "courts"'

The article above mentions a review commissioned by the UK government. The review's been completed, and it found that there is discrimination against women in the operation of the sharia councils (shocking, I know) despite the fact that 90% of those who apply for arbitration by the councils are women. The review makes recommendations on how to remedy that.

In the US there are Jewish law courts that operate under an arrangement similar to the sharia councils in the UK. I'll note that the Tanakh is akin to the Quran in its regressive precepts and draconian directives, yet somehow these courts have managed to operate for over fifty years without raising an outcry.

[Cunt]

Be public about your contempt for Islam then.

Organize a 'draw Mohommad' contest at your local school.

Unless their funding would be at risk by wrongspeak.

Likely, there is no problem you guys can see with Islam creeping into law, starting Sharia courts in western countries, or claiming they are an oppressed minority to gather more legal support for their religion.

There are Sharia courts in the west. Go break their laws, if you don't believe they have teeth. If you can't find the particular laws in print, and want to see if Islam rules, check if you are free to draw Mohommad on public sidewalks, outside Mosques, Synagogues or churches. Write down results.

Your claims of 'Islamophobia laws' are shown to be false, so instead of acknowledging that you babble about how I'm supposed to do something.

Sharia law is a reality in some western countries. Canada has human rights laws to constrain what can be 'said' about Islam.

If you think that Islam is deserving of criticism, and it isn't unlawful for Canadian academics to criticise it, show me the classes where it is taught.

Unless you can't.

To what end? I've no use for Islam, and have stated my opinions on it more than once on this site, but apparently you'd like me to go out and try to antagonize Muslims.

This is pretty narrow-minded of you. Do you think so little of the humans who happen to submit to Islam, that you would believe them violent in response to criticism of their ideas?

That can't be right, I mean, we criticize lots of ideas, right in front of people.

If you are suggesting that the violent be free from criticism, I would like you to expand on that.

Feel free to do your own shit stirring if you think it's so important; I've better things to do than imitate the inane publicity stunts of the provocateur nitwits that you find so inspiring.

I think they are braver than me. Maybe braver than you about this subject, too.

I suggest that you inform yourself about the realities of sharia-based arbitration in the UK. Perhaps then you'll be able to provide a trenchant critique of the system rather than just regurgitating rubbish you've picked up from sources like Breitbart. The arbitration pertains only to people who've agreed to abide by the rulings (sharia councils have no legal standing on their own), and all rulings have to conform to UK law, without exception. 'The UK's Sharia "courts"'

The article above mentions a review commissioned by the UK government. The review's been completed, and it found that there is discrimination against women in the operation of the sharia councils (shocking, I know) despite the fact that 90% of those who apply for arbitration by the councils are women. The review makes recommendations on how to remedy that.

In the US there are Jewish law courts that operate under an arrangement similar to the sharia councils in the UK. I'll note that the Tanakh is akin to the Quran in its regressive precepts and draconian directives, yet somehow these courts have managed to operate for over fifty years without raising an outcry.

So you are good with Sharia courts. That's your perogative.

It sounds like as long as our criticisms are kept relatively private, and we don't try to teach about the real Islam in schools, it's going to be ok.

Well, we can't draw Mohommad either, because some people think violence in response to that is somehow justified by oppression of religion or something...but nothing important is wrong with this picture, right?

It's like submission to their religion, but it isn't really because we (privately, quietly) criticise their worst ideas.

Like how they have such a terrible sex trafficking young girls (which is what 'arranged marriage' sounds like to me) that there is a common signal, taught to all airport security staff, to use as an alert.

But if they don't get away, they can always consent to Sharia Court, right? So they'll get justice, of a kind.

[Joe]

I showed a reference to the law, which was denied. There are extreme cases, such as Sharia law being applied in western democracies, but I don't care to find them, since evidence bounces off you.

Says the guy who never posts evidence for any of his claims!

I think I remember him doing that, but the law didn't support his claims.

He posted a quote from an opinion piece without any link and gave in inaccurate attribution (it was a blog post that was also published on Huffington Post). He never linked to any law, because no such law exists. There was a motion passed by unanimous consent that paid lip service to the idea that Islamist extremists do not represent Muslims and do not reflect the 'values or the teachings' of Islam. No prohibition of Islamophobia can be found or is implied in the text of the motion nor of the online petition it affirms. He may have convinced himself that such a prohibition exists, but he's failed to convince anybody else.

There was another motion (M-103) passed in the following year which our Great Slave Lake correspondent was either unaware of or had confused with the 2016 motion. It's a non-binding motion, and no prohibition of Islamophobia can be found or is implied in its text, either. Since I posted the full text of the 2016 motion, I think I should do the same with M-103.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Apparently our member who uses a derogatory term for women's genitalia as his handle is an avid consumer of right wing hysteria sites and willingly adopts their delusional propaganda, but is unable to articulate for himself just what this 'prohibition' consists of.

Thanks for the clarification. My memory was kinder to him than his rhetoric deserved.

[JimC]

I have read that they operate in minor dispute-settling roles in some areas of Britain, but their decisions are of course not legally binding. Even if minor, personally I think they should be scrubbed out...

Why not let them? I mean, the only people who will suffer the penalties of Sharia willingly are willing adherents, right?

I mean, those courts wouldn't be used to keep women bound into marriages arranged between their men/keepers, would they?

They should be scrubbed out, but you don't want to come off as 'anti-Muslim', even if it is just a shitty religious belief...

I don't mind being seen as anti-Islam in the sense of criticising its strictures, and I think any form of private, religious-based para-legal system is inappropriate in a pluralist democracy. It is true that some muslim women have problems in obtaining a divorce, but the same is true of conservative Jews and Catholics. Ultimately, I want all religions to fade away into the sort of toothless tigers that most mainstream Christian denominations have become, where they have zero power or influence in society, and are the equivalent of belonging to a stamp collecting club. The longer muslims live in pluralist societies, especially ones that welcome them and want to include them in all everyday activities, the sooner that will happen.

Being anti-muslim is typically the preserve of racist right-wing red-necks.

[Cunt]

You want to see how the 'non-existent' laws are enforced? How Canadians are bullied by the government for simply being critical of Islam?

I'll do it once more, but if anyone else pretends it doesn't happen, I might have to suspend them.

Find your own sources, since of course you won't trust mine, but Ezra Levant was pursued by the Human Rights Commission, over republishing the Mohommad cartoons from a few years ago. He published his rebuttal to the idiots at the Alberta Human Rights office, and there is a video if you want to look. (it's funny in places, how toothless the government officials are when faced with resourceful opposition)

[Cunt]

...fade away into the sort of toothless tigers that most mainstream Christian denominations have become, where they have zero power or influence in society, and are the equivalent of belonging to a stamp collecting club.

Toothless? Zero power?

Are you referring to the Catholic child-rape ring, which operates world-wide and owns its own country?

Yeah. Toothless.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Your claims of 'Islamophobia laws' are shown to be false, so instead of acknowledging that you babble about how I'm supposed to do something.

Sharia law is a reality in some western countries. Canada has human rights laws to constrain what can be 'said' about Islam.

If you think that Islam is deserving of criticism, and it isn't unlawful for Canadian academics to criticise it, show me the classes where it is taught.

Unless you can't.

Like the Islamic Studies programmes widely available at Canadian universities? If you're asserting that no professor in any of those programmes is allowed to speak critically of Islam, it's up to you to provide evidence in support of that assertion. I won't be holding my breath.

To what end? I've no use for Islam, and have stated my opinions on it more than once on this site, but apparently you'd like me to go out and try to antagonize Muslims.

This is pretty narrow-minded of you. Do you think so little of the humans who happen to submit to Islam, that you would believe them violent in response to criticism of their ideas?

That can't be right, I mean, we criticize lots of ideas, right in front of people.

If you are suggesting that the violent be free from criticism, I would like you to expand on that.

I don't go out and antagonize Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, or religious people of any other faith either, and that's a failing I'm just going to have to learn to live with. I suppose that disappoints you, eh?

Feel free to do your own shit stirring if you think it's so important; I've better things to do than imitate the inane publicity stunts of the provocateur nitwits that you find so inspiring.

I think they are braver than me. Maybe braver than you about this subject, too.

Poncing about with a posse of goons doesn't look like bravery to me.

So you are good with Sharia courts. That's your perogative.

It sounds like as long as our criticisms are kept relatively private, and we don't try to teach about the real Islam in schools, it's going to be ok.

Well, we can't draw Mohommad either, because some people think violence in response to that is somehow justified by oppression of religion or something...but nothing important is wrong with this picture, right?

It's like submission to their religion, but it isn't really because we (privately, quietly) criticise their worst ideas.

Like how they have such a terrible sex trafficking young girls (which is what 'arranged marriage' sounds like to me) that there is a common signal, taught to all airport security staff, to use as an alert.

But if they don't get away, they can always consent to Sharia Court, right? So they'll get justice, of a kind.

More of the trademark disingenuous bullshit. While I offered some relevant information, I didn't actually believe that you'd bother to absorb any of it. Perhaps you think you're being clever, but from here it just looks like a puerile attention seeking. To be fair, people respond to you here so I can't really deny that you're successful in your own limited way.

[JimC]

...fade away into the sort of toothless tigers that most mainstream Christian denominations have become, where they have zero power or influence in society, and are the equivalent of belonging to a stamp collecting club.

Toothless? Zero power?

Are you referring to the Catholic child-rape ring, which operates world-wide and owns its own country?

Yeah. Toothless.

First, brush up on your quoting techniques...

Compared to its past, the current day Catholic church has lost a lot of power, prestige and adherents, particularly in recent years, largely as a result of its pedophile priests being exposed; their future ability for systemic cover-ups is much diminished. A large majority of catholics in western countries are "cultural catholics", who hardly go to mass and ignore most of the church's dictates. The true believers are getting older and fewer...

[JimC]

Edit - Cunt, it may not be your fault with the quote system - the same thing seems to have happened here to me, and I did it the standard way. Seems to be a glitch...

[Cunt]

The courses are there, and curiously, no-one is publishing cartoons of Mohommad anymore.

Probably I was wrong about the teaching. (I also found an academic - Gad Saad - who seems critical of that bullshit)

But yeah, there obviously isn't a problem. There is no law against criticising one of the many religions, just a coincidence that many people warn that criticism of ONE kind of religion will provoke violence...

No law which dragged Ezra Levant before a government bully...at least not a law which could stop someone from feeling like speaking.

[Cunt]

Toothless? Zero power?

Are you referring to the Catholic child-rape ring, which operates world-wide and owns its own country?

Yeah. Toothless.

Compared to its past, the current day Catholic church has lost a lot of power, prestige and adherents, particularly in recent years, largely as a result of its pedophile priests being exposed; their future ability for systemic cover-ups is much diminished. A large majority of catholics in western countries are "cultural catholics", who hardly go to mass and ignore most of the church's dictates. The true believers are getting older and fewer...

So maybe the robust investigation and criticism of the Catholic church was part of exposing this shit.

Edit - Cunt, it may not be your fault with the quote system - the same thing seems to have happened here to me, and I did it the standard way. Seems to be a glitch...

It's too late anyway...it is passed the editing window.

We are DOOMED.

[BarnettNewman]

Sharia law is a reality in some western countries. Canada has human rights laws to constrain what can be 'said' about Islam.

About islam in particular or religious hate speech in general? I think you will find you are half right.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The complaints against Levant were withdrawn in one instance and dismissed in the other. The law under which the complaints were brought is not by any reasonable standard an 'Islamophobia law.'

3(1) No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that

(a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

(b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, gender identity, gender expression, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.

[Cunt]

Sharia law is a reality in some western countries. Canada has human rights laws to constrain what can be 'said' about Islam.

About islam in particular or religious hate speech in general? I think you will find you are half right.

The example I provided was about Islam in particular. You are welcome to investigate any related subject, but with so many here unable to wrap their heads around a law being used to support Islam at the expense of a free press, is why I dug up that example.

It is clearly a bunch of paid government employees, using government resources, to attack a publisher for reporting news.

Nothing wrong with it, according to everyone here (such as yourself) twisting themselves in pretzels to insist that there isn't a law. And if there is it isn't really important. And if it is enforced it is only enforced against people who say mean things, so it's ok.


Or something. I don't know why you all insist on 'whattaboutism' so regularly when the subject is Islam.

It is hard to see it as all that different from submission or something...

And Lemmy, the charges were only withdrawn because he was a resourceful, and formidable opponent. How do you think a regular person, who had no legal training, would fare? Do you think the 900 or so days he was bullied by the government were ok? Just because they withdrew the charges?

At the organization level, it means that most simply won't risk running afoul of that branch of government. You are welcome to present examples, of course, but part of the irritation I have is that you all decry most of the current public critics of Islam (like Milo Y., or Lauren Southern) yet haven't presented any examples of people who are doing it WELL. Sure, I believe that you all don't like those two because they are 'too far right' or whatever, but where IS the quality criticism then?

[pErvinalia]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Be public about your contempt for Islam then.

Organize a 'draw Mohommad' contest at your local school.

Unless their funding would be at risk by wrongspeak.

Likely, there is no problem you guys can see with Islam creeping into law, starting Sharia courts in western countries, or claiming they are an oppressed minority to gather more legal support for their religion.

There are Sharia courts in the west. Go break their laws, if you don't believe they have teeth. If you can't find the particular laws in print, and want to see if Islam rules, check if you are free to draw Mohommad on public sidewalks, outside Mosques, Synagogues or churches. Write down results.

Your claims of 'Islamophobia laws' are shown to be false, so instead of acknowledging that you babble about how I'm supposed to do something.

Sharia law is a reality in some western countries. Canada has human rights laws to constrain what can be 'said' about Islam.

If you think that Islam is deserving of criticism, and it isn't unlawful for Canadian academics to criticise it, show me the classes where it is taught.

Unless you can't.

To what end? I've no use for Islam, and have stated my opinions on it more than once on this site, but apparently you'd like me to go out and try to antagonize Muslims.

This is pretty narrow-minded of you. Do you think so little of the humans who happen to submit to Islam, that you would believe them violent in response to criticism of their ideas?

That can't be right, I mean, we criticize lots of ideas, right in front of people.

If you are suggesting that the violent be free from criticism, I would like you to expand on that.

Feel free to do your own shit stirring if you think it's so important; I've better things to do than imitate the inane publicity stunts of the provocateur nitwits that you find so inspiring.

I think they are braver than me. Maybe braver than you about this subject, too.

I suggest that you inform yourself about the realities of sharia-based arbitration in the UK. Perhaps then you'll be able to provide a trenchant critique of the system rather than just regurgitating rubbish you've picked up from sources like Breitbart. The arbitration pertains only to people who've agreed to abide by the rulings (sharia councils have no legal standing on their own), and all rulings have to conform to UK law, without exception. 'The UK's Sharia "courts"'

The article above mentions a review commissioned by the UK government. The review's been completed, and it found that there is discrimination against women in the operation of the sharia councils (shocking, I know) despite the fact that 90% of those who apply for arbitration by the councils are women. The review makes recommendations on how to remedy that.

In the US there are Jewish law courts that operate under an arrangement similar to the sharia councils in the UK. I'll note that the Tanakh is akin to the Quran in its regressive precepts and draconian directives, yet somehow these courts have managed to operate for over fifty years without raising an outcry.

So you are good with Sharia courts. That's your perogative.

It sounds like as long as our criticisms are kept relatively private, and we don't try to teach about the real Islam in schools, it's going to be ok.

Well, we can't draw Mohommad either, because some people think violence in response to that is somehow justified by oppression of religion or something...but nothing important is wrong with this picture, right?

It's like submission to their religion, but it isn't really because we (privately, quietly) criticise their worst ideas.

Like how they have such a terrible sex trafficking young girls (which is what 'arranged marriage' sounds like to me) that there is a common signal, taught to all airport security staff, to use as an alert.

But if they don't get away, they can always consent to Sharia Court, right? So they'll get justice, of a kind.

Dawkins and Harris often criticise Islam brutally. How does that fit in with your bizarre world view?