Islam and Western Society

[George Wallace]

We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?

WHOA!

You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you. 

Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from. 

Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed. 

 

[McG]

Not forcing people to dress as you want is "generous"?

Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here? 

Sorry to challenge your bigoted view here but many of "they" were born Canadian.  "They" did not come here any more than you came here and imposed with your European ways. 

Should the Dene or Iroquois invite you to assimilate or leave?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't care what anyone wears, so long as I can read their facial reactions when I'm talking to them.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

WHOA!

You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you. 

Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from. 

Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed.

So, what is "our"? French and British only? Do Ukrainians count too, as long as they're not too Ukrainian? Like, with the dancing and perogies and stuff? What about Italians? Can we loop natives into "our" too since it was their land to start with or are they too weird to be "us"?

Taking a look at our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

So, our own charter says that we're supposed to be better than this (and acknowledged the event was in France, not Canada). The charter doesn't stipulate that the rights only count if they fit into someones definition of "our".

As for your argument about reciprocation, who cares? Perhaps, just perhaps, these people, like our European ancestors (who did fun things like burned protestants/catholics/jews/etc, threw them from windows and, in the case of France, killed thousands in holy wars) came to Canada to escape such things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't paint all muslims with the same brush more than we do any other religion or race or ethnicity. I, as a part of the "our" I suspect you speak of (white, first generation Canadian), take pride in the fact that in Canada we treat people better than, say, Iran. I take pride that we allow different views to be spoken. I take pride that we protect people's freedoms of religion where other's dont. I also take pride that we have law and order and will punish those who actually do violate our laws.

The "Burkini" was never going to hurt anyone, but the reaction of people who are willing to look away from basic freedoms we give in the name of whatever it is they are going for (punishment? Xenophobia? fashion?) can, and does. I think Nietzsche best summed it up:

 

[mariomike]

Burkinis? What about Speedos? ( aka "Budgie Smugglers" ) 

After the burkini ban, people are asking if France can outlaw fat men in Speedos too
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/after-the-burkini-ban-people-are-asking-if-france-can-outlaw-fat-men-in-speedos-too--bJxCDWodJdb

 

[Jarnhamar]

Timothy McVeigh was pretty Christian and white and he killed 168 and wounded another 650. The IRA were pretty christian and white and they killed people. Ditto for the Basques.

Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.

McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.  That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.  A bit more current then 1995.


Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.

McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[91] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[92] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[93] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[91] In McVeigh's biography American Terrorist, released in 2002, he stated that he did not believe in a hell and that science is his religion.[94][95] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. However, he took the Last Rites, administered by a priest, just before his execution

The problem with the Burqua laws are that they just feed into what the terrorists/ISIS tell disillusioned youth to get them to commit these acts. So by implementing these laws the west simply disenfranchises more young muslims, tells them they aren't a part of their own society, and keeps the circle going.

Maybe.
I'd say the problem with the Burqua is that it's being defended as religious freedom when it's not a religious article of clothing. (I know that's a tired argument too)
On top of that it's represents abuse to a lot of people and it's only become popular in the last little while.

Sensationalized sure but you get the picture.

We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell Muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?

"We" are still relatively safe. The problem with me and you sitting here debating over France banning Burkins is that me and you aren't witnessing violent attacks and confrontations first hand like France is.  We can still go to the grocery story and not wonder if it's going to blow up or have to stay away from certain parts of town. We're generally not afraid someone is going to smash us with a truck on a beach as a terrorist attack.  A terrorist wanna-be murdered a Canadian soldier and paralyzed the country in fear for a few days. Our military was ordered to drive to work in civilian clothing- from one attack and one death.

Easy for us to criticize France but they're basically underseige. I guarantee if we see the number of attacks they have or the death toll they deal with we'll change our views too.

 

[George Wallace]

So, what is "our"? French and British only? Do Ukrainians count too, as long as they're not too Ukrainian? Like, with the dancing and perogies and stuff? What about Italians? Can we loop natives into "our" too since it was their land to start with or are they too weird to be "us"?

All your examples are of peoples who have, for the most part, integrated into a homogeneous society and culture, accepting of the differences between them all.  This all existed well before we had "Multiculturalism" forced upon us.  I have no problem with that, nor any of your following quotes from the Charter.  I do have a problem with those who DO NOT want to integrate with our culture and society, no matter whom they are.  If they don't like it, then why are they here? 

Taking a look at our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;  This is not a clause stating that it is acceptable to convert, subvert or otherwise attack other's religions. 

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;  This does not, however, permit "HATE SPEECH", or such, to be transmitted against others.

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and  NOTE the wording: "peaceful".

(d) freedom of association.  Within the LAW, of course.

So, our own charter says that we're supposed to be better than this (and acknowledged the event was in France, not Canada). The charter doesn't stipulate that the rights only count if they fit into someones definition of "our".

As for your argument about reciprocation, who cares? Perhaps, just perhaps, these people, like our European ancestors (who did fun things like burned protestants/catholics/jews/etc, threw them from windows and, in the case of France, killed thousands in holy wars) came to Canada to escape such things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't paint all muslims with the same brush more than we do any other religion or race or ethnicity. I, as a part of the "our" I suspect you speak of (white, first generation Canadian), take pride in the fact that in Canada we treat people better than, say, Iran. I take pride that we allow different views to be spoken. I take pride that we protect people's freedoms of religion where other's dont. I also take pride that we have law and order and will punish those who actually do violate our laws.

I stand by my points.  If they have come here to escape those things, fine.  If they are bringing that hatred and barbaric beliefs here, with the intent to apply them to our culture and society, then NO.  Different views are fine.  Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable. 

The "Burkini" was never going to hurt anyone, but the reaction of people who are willing to look away from basic freedoms we give in the name of whatever it is they are going for (punishment? Xenophobia? fashion?) can, and does.

Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.

 

[Remius]

Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.

McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.  That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.  A bit more current then 1995.


Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.

What about this guy then:  Robert Lewis Dear in 2015.  Pretty recent and has all the hallmarks of a religious inspired terrorist attack. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Yes Timothy McVeigh. He's the go to example of "Christians are terrorists too".  Along with Hitler.

McVeigh's attack was 21 years ago, hardly current. Religionofpeace.com is obviously biased but I took a look at some of the stats and stories they posted and found them accurate so far.  That website is tracking 1534 Islamic attacks in 51 countries, in which 13592 people were killed and 16443 injured; in 2016.  A bit more current then 1995.


Also McVeigh's on again off again religion was hardly the driving force behind his attacks. He bombed the building because of what happened in Waco, Ruby Ridge and other government actions. Here's a blurb on his "religion" from Wikipedia.



Maybe.
I'd say the problem with the Burqua is that it's being defended as religious freedom when it's not a religious article of clothing. (I know that's a tired argument too)
On top of that it's represents abuse to a lot of people and it's only become popular in the last little while.

Sensationalized sure but you get the picture.

"We" are still relatively safe. The problem with me and you sitting here debating over France banning Burkins is that me and you aren't witnessing violent attacks and confrontations first hand like France is.  We can still go to the grocery story and not wonder if it's going to blow up or have to stay away from certain parts of town. We're generally not afraid someone is going to smash us with a truck on a beach as a terrorist attack.  A terrorist wanna-be murdered a Canadian soldier and paralyzed the country in fear for a few days. Our military was ordered to drive to work in civilian clothing- from one attack and one death.

Easy for us to criticize France but they're basically underseige. I guarantee if we see the number of attacks they have or the death toll they deal with we'll change our views too.

Ok, so you think McVeigh is too old. How about Dylan Roof (Charleston massacre)?

But, you are right- The Burkha is simply an article of clothing, no different than jeans, t-shirts, or ball caps. The Burkha has never killed anyone since it is an inanimate object. So what are people afraid of? How does outlawing a piece of clothing make France any safer?

I suspect that famous French citizens like Jean-Jacques Rousseau would be dismayed to see that in 2016 France was at a state where their only ability to deal with the rise of extremism in their communities wasn't to deal with "why" these people felt disenfranchised or why they could become enemies of the state- rather, to ban a piece of clothing with, as you stated, no religious value. The following quote, describes a separate situation, but I feel defines how we, the west, violate our key principles when we do things like ban pieces of cloth:

“They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: 'If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.' Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.”
― Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1st Discourse) and Polemics

Finally- “Laws are always useful to those who possess and vexatious to those who have nothing.”― Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Perhaps the social issues facing muslims in France and other parts of the west is what is leading to the radicalization? Most radicals, like the IRA, fight not because they have much, they fight because they have nothing and few options. Continually stripping them of culture and pride only exacerbates the problem. We don't need to "hug it out" with terrorists, but we sure as h@ll need to understand "why" it's happening

 

[jollyjacktar]

I just finished watching this film over the weekend.  These bastards (and the Christian fundamentalists too) are out there as well and quite frankly scare me just as much if not more than little Johnny Jihad as I think they're probably more numerous and the most definitely look like us and come from us.  I don't know if they're as prevalent north of the border as they are down south.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_(2016_film)

 

[mariomike]

For anyone curious about how much a Burkini ticket is, it's €11 (£9, $12).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37183083

I believe that is $16.06 CDN.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Perhaps the social issues facing muslims in France and other parts of the west is what is leading to the radicalization? Most radicals, like the IRA, fight not because they have much, they fight because they have nothing and few options. Continually stripping them of culture and pride only exacerbates the problem. We don't need to "hug it out" with terrorists, but we sure as h@ll need to understand "why" it's happening

On that bit in yellow, what makes it complicated is that in the West, it appears that folks with not much to complain about (from the outside looking in, at least) are being radicalized.  How you deal with them might be quite different from how to deal with those more marginalized, or those who are showing some mental illness or other vulnerability.  All of this, plus the int piece plus the policing piece plus the fighting them where they grow/prosper plus deradicalization options, makes it a pretty complicated answer.  Which is why it's easy to pick on something that may not fix the problem - like falling for baiting from people like "look at these nuns on a beach that may not even ban burkinis" guy.

 

[Journeyman]

~sigh~

Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable.

Correct, and no one is arguing that it is acceptable...except you in your straw man.

The massively overwhelming  percentage of Muslims living here do not believe in Jihad.  They do feel that their community is under siege and already too much under a microscope.  Internal to the Islamic communities, the majority are therefore quite unhappy with their radicalized people who add to that siege.  Externally, the people who keep bringing forth this narrative of "if you're not going to be a white, anglo, Ozzie and Harriet, then you must be a terrorist-in-waiting, so go home [even if this is their home],"  simply adds to both communities' tensions..... not withstanding, as noted, being a BS straw-man.

In the end, the vast minority of people actually preaching radicalized violence are pining for the past -- the first generation of Islam -- and do not function well in modern society, because they try to replicate a society that existed 1400 years ago. 

As such, I do not believe that jihad can succeed; to paraphrase John Lennon, "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao  Osama bin Laden, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow."  It will inevitably collapse of its own contradictions, but it must be an internal process.  It will probably be a lengthy fight, but the struggle will only be lengthened by ill thought out [to be generous], black & white statements that only feed into the radicals' narratives of "see? By their own words, they're out to oppress us."



Note:  Many of the words here I've taken from an interview with Mubin Shaikh, the CSIS/RCMP operative within the "Toronto 18."

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

All your examples are of peoples who have, for the most part, integrated into a homogeneous society and culture, accepting of the differences between them all.  This all existed well before we had "Multiculturalism" forced upon us.  I have no problem with that, nor any of your following quotes from the Charter.  I do have a problem with those who DO NOT want to integrate with our culture and society, no matter whom they are.  If they don't like it, then why are they here? 

I stand by my points.  If they have come here to escape those things, fine.  If they are bringing that hatred and barbaric beliefs here, with the intent to apply them to our culture and society, then NO.  Different views are fine.  Radicalization and the intent to destroy our culture and society are not acceptable. 

Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.

The point with the Burkini is, why do you care what she wants to wear to the beach? Why does it matter so deeply to you that she wants to wear a one piece swimsuit? It shouldn't, because frankly, it's none of your business what she wants to wear. Is it cultural or religious? Once again, who cares? If she wants to wear it to the beach and it's not hurting you than why do you care?

If people can't accept that then I would suggest the problem lies with them and not her or her culture. Also, that "certain culture" you speak of should be the French culture needing to catch up with western norms of individual choice and acceptance of other cultures. The muslim ladies told to take it off were French citizens, so by default, they were acting as French people do (sort of in the same way that once you win a nobel peace prize/pullitzer, etc you by default always act like a nobel peace prize winner.

Next, as stated by journeyman, the VAST majority of muslims here in Canada have integrated, and frankly, know far more about Canada and are far better educated about the world than most of the people I grew up around in Grey County, Ontario. I'm Ukrainian/Dutch and recently attended a Ukrainian festival in Dauphin, Manitoba. Do those people, who joined Ukrainian associations to preserve Ukrainian heritage show that they've integrated into Canadian culture any more than a muslim person in Toronto who wants to wear a Burkha as part of their heritage? What about Oktoberfest in Kitchener, On? We should shut that down since the Germans (who, btw, we actually fought existential wars with) refuse to become Canadian.

Finally, multiculturalism wasn't force on you. Canada is a multicultural country. The only people multiculturalism was forced on were the natives. Muslim's born in Canada have every right to be Canadian in their own way, same as you. If you don't like it, than, in your own words, you're free to leave.

 

[mariomike]

I'm Ukrainian/Dutch and recently attended a Ukrainian festival in Dauphin, Manitoba. Do those people, who joined Ukrainian associations to preserve Ukrainian heritage show that they've integrated into Canadian culture any more than a muslim person in Toronto who wants to wear a Burkha as part of their heritage?

Check this one out. Neither of us are Ukrainian, but it's in our neighbourhood, so we go every year!
http://www.ukrainianfestival.com/

Good news about the Burkini tempest, they stop ticketing in six days. Brace for the next social media sh!t storm. 

 

[George Wallace]

The point with the Burkini is, why do you care what she wants to wear to the beach? Why does it matter so deeply to you that she wants to wear a one piece swimsuit? It shouldn't, because frankly, it's none of your business what she wants to wear. Is it cultural or religious? Once again, who cares? If she wants to wear it to the beach and it's not hurting you than why do you care?

Did I state that I cared?  I don't.

Frankly, the "Burkini" is no different than the examples of Catholic Nuns, or the costumes that women wore to the beach in the year 1900.  Let's also remember that this is not a "religious garment" but a cultural one and stop pushing the "religious argument" when discussing it.  All it is, is a certain culture is catching up with the times.  It is a modernization of what they were permitted previously (to the best of my knowledge).  In another hundred years, perhaps they will be accepting of 1970's swimwear.

So the French passed a Law?  That is their business, along with the enforcement of.  It is very objectionable, though, that in enforcing the Law, the Police had the person remove clothing instead of just the issuance of a Ticket/Fine.

Finally, multiculturalism wasn't force on you. Canada is a multicultural country. The only people multiculturalism was forced on were the natives. Muslim's born in Canada have every right to be Canadian in their own way, same as you. If you don't like it, than, in your own words, you're free to leave.

I did not say that Canada was not a multicultural country.  I stated that "Multiculturalism", as in a Government Legislation and Institution, was forced upon us.  That is why I put it in quotes.  Decades before the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau created this whole "Multiculturalism", we had many different Cultural Festivals, perhaps even more than we do today.  The Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo are probably the largest and most known, having been in existence for ages.  Saint Patrick's Day, the Lunar New Year and other celebrations have also been popular well before "Multiculturalism" became a political buzz word.  As such, I feel "Multiculturalism" in the Government mandated sense is a failure and counter productive, sometimes even discriminatory. 

On an aside:  Events that require Government funding, may want to look at why they need that funding.  Perhaps there is no market for what they are offering.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Check this one out. I'm not Ukrainian, but it's in my neighbourhood, so I go every year!
http://www.ukrainianfestival.com/

Good news about the Burkini tempest, they stop ticketing in six days. 

Why wont these people just assimilate and become Canadians already? My Canada does not include women wearing hats made of flowers and speaking a foreign language! I demand a ban on flower hats

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A British comedian had this comment on fashion at last year's Just for Laughs Festival:

"In my country, we still have fox-hunts. In every hunt, there is a hound dog at the back of the pack who has a birth defect and as result - no sense of smell at all. He can't smell anything. He doesn't smell the fox. Doesn't know what the pack is after. All he is doing is following a bunch of A**holes!"

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Did I state that I cared?  I don't.

So the French passed a Law?  That is their business, along with the enforcement of.  It is very objectionable, though, that in enforcing the Law, the Police had the person remove clothing instead of just the issuance of a Ticket/Fine.

I did not say that Canada was not a multicultural country.  I stated that "Multiculturalism", as in a Government Legislation and Institution, was forced upon us.  That is why I put it in quotes.  Decades before the Liberals under Pierre Elliott Trudeau created this whole "Multiculturalism", we had many different Cultural Festivals, perhaps even more than we do today.  The Ukrainian Festival in Dauphin and Oktoberfest in Kitchener-Waterloo are probably the largest and most known, having been in existence for ages.  Saint Patrick's Day, the Lunar New Year and other celebrations have also been popular well before "Multiculturalism" became a political buzz word.  As such, I feel "Multiculturalism" in the Government mandated sense is a failure and counter productive, sometimes even discriminatory. 

On an aside:  Events that require Government funding, may want to look at why they need that funding.  Perhaps there is no market for what they are offering.

You clearly care since you were able to hop up to a keyboard and put your  :2c: in. I care because I think the west is better than what France is doing and what Trump is espousing to our South. Muslims/Mexicans aren't going to destroy our way of life... we're going to destroy it by destroying what we stand for most of all- tolerance, unalienable freedoms, etc. Trump wants to build a castle society, so does France.

Multiculturalism, whether government funded or not, is part of the reality of Canada. Oktoberfest receives government funding (http://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Celebrating_German_Culture_and_Heritage_in_Waterloo_Region/115, https://www.oktoberfest.ca/News/Kitchener-Waterloo-Oktoberfest-Receives-Ontario-Trillium-Foundation-Funding/111). I assume that you are equally angry to know that governments (Conservative too) have been giving your hard working tax dollars to these welfare burden, lederhosen wearing, kraut eating Germans. Or are they enough like "us" to qualify to be in your Canada?

 

[mariomike]

I felt sorry for the Nice P.D. Hard to imagine a "nicer" assignment than babe beach watch on the French Riviera. Instead, they have to spend their days handing out two-bit by-law tickets.