Poll of the Day > As a Canadian I am truely sorry for this

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://globalnews.ca/news/3547219/commentary-canadian-charged-in-u-s-terrorist-attack-how-will-trump-react/

I am sorry my american friends for what one of our citizens have done
---

I mean, it sucks but should this even count as a terrorist attack?
---

lokarin trying to be edgy again
---

How is that edgy?
---

Smarkil posted...

I mean, it sucks but should this even count as a terrorist attack?

This.

The word "terrorism" gets batted around way too lightly these days. Save it for incidents that actually deserve it.
---

Canada welcomes all, but you know this will be fodder for those who think we are too politically correct when it comes to people’s ideology.

We are though. We've been so cowed by political correctness that we're afraid to address the growing radicalization happening on our own soil for fear of appearing "Islamophobic".
---

...so if I stab a retired police officer while screaming "For Jesus, the son of our Lord", then we got a Christian terrorist attack?
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Canada welcomes all, but you know this will be fodder for those who think we are too politically correct when it comes to people’s ideology.

We are though. We've been so cowed by political correctness that we're afraid to address the growing radicalization happening on our own soil for fear of appearing "Islamophobic".

Yes, that horrible threat that has resulted in... wait, let me just add this all up here... *one* serious incident in the last ten years. And even that's probably giving it too much credit, given that it only resulted in one death.

Hell, anti-Muslim terrorists have killed more people here than Islamists (granted, that's not exactly a high bar to surpass). This idea that we have some serious threat we're failing to address is just sensationalism of the worst kind.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, that horrible threat that has resulted in... wait, let me just add this all up here... *one* serious incident in the last ten years. And even that's probably giving it too much credit, given that it only resulted in one death.

So they have to 9/11 something before we take it seriously? Get lost with that shit.

darkknight109 posted...

Hell, anti-Muslim terrorists have killed more people here than Islamists (granted, that's not exactly a high bar to surpass).

This is also a distressing problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not some fucking asshole, sheesh.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

So they have to 9/11 something before we take it seriously? Get lost with that shit.

No, but if you want me to think this is a serious problem that we're not properly addressing and that warrants major changes in our society, you're going to have to be able to point to something more than one death in ten years.

They're not a null factor, but this "We're so blinded by our political correctness we're handcuffing ourselves against A MASSIVE THREAT AND PROBLEM THAT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL" bullshit is simple hysteria. Islamist terrorists rank somewhere below gangs, rank-and-file criminals, and random lightning strikes on the threat radar.
---

Actually you can just blame the US for destabilizing the nation and sending over some bitter refugees.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

So they have to 9/11 something before we take it seriously? Get lost with that shit.

No, but if you want me to think this is a serious problem that we're not properly addressing and that warrants major changes in our society, you're going to have to be able to point to something more than one death in ten years.

They're not a null factor, but this "We're so blinded by our political correctness we're handcuffing ourselves against A MASSIVE THREAT AND PROBLEM THAT'S GOING TO KILL US ALL" bullshit is simple hysteria. Islamist terrorists rank somewhere below gangs, rank-and-file criminals, and random lightning strikes on the threat radar.

We're so up our own ass with political correctness that defining "Islamophobia" was refused when passing Motion-103, because god forbid it's not whatever the PC Police want it to be, and similar motions to investigate the issue of highly insular mosques (which have openly pushed for Sharia in Canada) to see what they're really teaching in Canada couldn't even get discussed, let alone voted on.

That's not hystaria. Those are the things that happened.

And you're literally saying, "they have to kill more people".
---

Build that wall of magical ice.

Smarkil posted...

I mean, it sucks but should this even count as a terrorist attack?

I was confused by that as well.

Jen0125 posted...

lokarin trying to be edgy again

The fuck? What'd he get suspended for? I assume that the "Canadian is welcoming" quote is from him, but I don't get the issue.

Foppe posted...

...so if I stab a retired police officer while screaming "For Jesus, the son of our Lord", then we got a Christian terrorist attack?

Well, Mother Jones might claim that but most people wouldn't

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

So they have to 9/11 something before we take it seriously? Get lost with that shit.

---

it's not phobia if the fear is justified
---

Ogurisama posted...

citizens

Uh, speak for yourself, pal.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

We're so up our own ass with political correctness that defining "Islamophobia" was refused when passing Motion-103, because god forbid it's not whatever the PC Police want it to be, and similar motions to investigate the issue of highly insular mosques (which have openly pushed for Sharia in Canada) to see what they're really teaching in Canada couldn't even get discussed, let alone voted on.

OK, you sound like you're in favour of investigating insular mosques, some of which have advocated for a series of laws and regulations which are against Canadian laws and customs. Fine.

But why just Muslims? They're not the only group doing this. Why not investigate highly insular communities like the Hutterite colonies? I mean, who really knows what they're up to away from prying eyes? They might be terrorists and we should really investigate. For that matter, what about other strongly conservative religious groups? I know of plenty of devout religious groups in Alberta that homeschool their children - and many of them preach that gays are evil and will burn in a lake of fire; that's totally against Canadian values too. Same with those vehemently pro-life folks - after all, abortion is legal here and who are they to try and impose their values on the rest of us?

Maybe the best solution is to make homeschooling illegal - that way we can make sure that kids are being taught proper Canadian values and aren't being indoctrinated by some anti-Canadian cult and turned into terrorists. I assume you're in total agreement, based on what you've said?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

And you're literally saying, "they have to kill more people".

If you want to suspend their rights or alter our laws and standards, you're damn right I'm saying that.

Muslims should no more suffer as a group for the actions of a handful of their members (again, resulting in one death in this country in 10+ years) than Anglophones should suffer for that lunatic who tried to kill Pauline Marois when she won the Quebec election.

Canada is a free country and you're literally advocating for police investigation and monitoring of people who have not broken any laws. You may disagree with their views - and I certainly do, particularly on subjects like segregation of sexes and making abortion and homosexuality illegal - but that's not enough to warrant the suspension and/or revocation of their rights.

If you want me to treat those mosques like they're terrorist training grounds, you better have some pretty solid proof that they actually are terrorist training grounds. Otherwise, they're one more group in Canada - like Freemen-on-the-Land, radical fundamentalist Christians (and I say this as a Christian myself), and NFA members - whose views I disagree with and sometimes find noxious, but who are allowed to express those views however they choose, so long as they stay within the limits of the law.

History has never - not once - looked kindly upon those who advocate for suspending the rights of a "suspicious" demographic whom they believe could cause harm to the greater good, whether that's the Japanese internment camps of WW2, the Chinese head tax, or the Residential Schools atrocities; I have full confidence that our descendants will judge us by a similar standard.
---

darkknight109 posted...

OK, you sound like you're in favour of investigating insular mosques, some of which have advocated for a series of laws and regulations which are against Canadian laws and customs. Fine.

But why just Muslims?

I never said just Muslims. >_>

I'd be comfortable investigating any groups known to come from a culture outwardly, and at times violently hostile to and incompatible with the values of western liberal democracy. That includes the more aggressive strains of white nationalists (who have difficulty even operating legally in Canada) and some Christian groups.


darkknight109 posted...

Canada is a free country and you're literally advocating for police investigation and monitoring of people who have not broken any laws.

And I'd like Canada to stay a free country. And that means preserving the Social Contract along with the concepts of liberty it entails, and protecting it from people who don't respect it.

And If M-103 is any indication, then I'm not sure what rights you think I'm suggesting be violated anyway. We can set up a parliamentary committee to investigate private citizens and organizations who have broken no laws, for Wrongthink against muslims, but not mosques for potentially undermining the foundations of our entire society? Because that's the current state of play.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I never said just Muslims. >_>

Then why phrase it the way you did? You specifically mentioned "Islamophobia" in your first post, rather than going with general extremism or anti-Canadianism.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I'd be comfortable investigating any groups known to come from a culture outwardly, and at times violently hostile to and incompatible with the values of western liberal democracy. That includes the more aggressive strains of white nationalists (who have difficulty even operating legally in Canada) and some Christian groups.

That's an awfully slippery slope, though, because it basically gives the government tacit endorsement to label groups it finds politically bothersome to be "enemies of the state". Russia operates under this concept - citizens are nominally free, but if you inconvenience the government expect to be investigated and audited for "Western influence" and charged with subversive acts.

Free speech, by definition, has to include speech you disagree with or it doesn't work. Hell, someone could go out on the street today and say "I hate Canada and everything it stands for and I think we should completely rewrite our laws to be a communo-fascist dictatorship," and I would completely defend their right to say what they did. They're wrong, their opinions are terrible, but it's not for me - and certainly not for the government - to say "Your opinions are so bad you have now forfeited your freedom."

Not to mention, we already have triggers to investigate those who actually pose a threat, because advocating violence is grounds for an investigation. Which is fine and I agree with it - you call for someone to get hurt or killed, that's something the police need to be involved with. But just because a mosque is saying things you don't like, that's not a high enough bar to be grounds for investigation.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

And I'd like Canada to stay a free country. And that means preserving the Social Contract along with the concepts of liberty it entails, and protecting it from people who don't respect it.

I wholeheartedly agree. That said, you can't say that you like being a free country and advocate treating one group of people differently purely because of their religion in the same breath - it doesn't work like that.

If you have probable cause to suggest that any specific institution is committing a crime - be that radicalization or facilitating terrorism - then that's different. But just because they're advocating views that you strongly disagree with, that does not justify trampling their rights.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

And If M-103 is any indication, then I'm not sure what rights you think I'm suggesting be violated anyway.

M-103 was a non-binding motion. All it basically was was a note saying "We think discriminating against Muslims is bad. Signed, Parliament." It has no legal weight whatsoever.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

We can set up a parliamentary committee to investigate private citizens and organizations who have broken no laws, for Wrongthink against muslims

Well, first off, phrasing what you've said another way is saying "The government is investigating groups that discriminate based on religion, therefore the government should be a group that discriminates based on religion," which doesn't make a lick of sense. Secondly, can you provide some examples of these people who you feel were improperly targeted based on their views?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

but not mosques for potentially undermining the foundations of our entire society?

It's worth noting that suffragettes, gay rights activists, and those advocating for granting non-whites equal status under the law were also once labelled as dangerous subversives who were undermining the moral and legal fabric of society. So no, I don't think that's a good enough reason.

Canadian culture is strong enough that I have full confidence it can survive the airing of bad ideas. A few nutbars with barmy ideas are not going to rewrite 150 years of progress.

Here, I can prove it. Can you identify for me a single mosque - just one - who has succeeded in implementing sharia law, rolling back some element of Canadian progress, or, hell, just altering any law whatsoever? I mean, if this really is as big a threat as you're asking me to consider it, this should not be a problem - just one example from anywhere in Canada will do fine.

Because I follow the news pretty closely and I'm pretty sure I'd have heard something about it if they'd succeeded in doing something like that. And if they haven't done that - or haven't even come close - then I don't think they're about to unravel the fabric of society like you're suggesting.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Then why phrase it the way you did? You specifically mentioned "Islamophobia" in your first post, rather than going with general extremism or anti-Canadianism.

Because I happened to be addressing a specific part of an article talking about Islam in particular and articulating how political correctness is keeping us from confronting the very real problems their incompatible culture.

Excuse me for not hastagging the appropriate hashtag, #NotAllOctothorpesHashtag so as to virtue signal that I might have more nuanced views on a subject than I am currently expressing. Fuck.

And because Canadian culture is a notoriously difficult thing to pin down, so referring to "anti-Canadianism" is a little strange. What's that old joke, it goes something like, "As Canadian as...possible under the circumstances" in response to the expression "As American as Apple Pie". This is why I framed my response in terms of western ideals rather than Canadian ones.

darkknight109 posted...

That's an awfully slippery slope ... expect to be investigated and audited for "Western influence" and charged with subversive acts.

Since M-103 is non-binding, it would be alarmist to say we're already there, but if that's any indication of how parliament thinks: then we're already there.

In fact, if you look up Canada's history of questionable free speech practices, and of criminalizing decent, you'll find some pretty shady things.

Free speech, by definition, has to include speech you disagree with or it doesn't work....it's not for me - and certainly not for the government - to say "Your opinions are so bad you have now forfeited your freedom."

What if someone wants to say things that might, in some context, possibly be considered Islamophobic? Should the government pass even a non-binding motion to have them, and really anyone in general, investigated for it?

Because that happened.

I wholeheartedly agree. That said, you can't say that you like being a free country and advocate treating one group of people differently purely because of their religion in the same breath - it doesn't work like that... they're advocating views that you strongly disagree with, that does not justify trampling their rights.

Again, what rights? I've only advocated for treatment of Muslims that parliament has itself deemed acceptable for others.
---

M-103 was a non-binding motion. All it basically was was a note saying "We think discriminating against Muslims is bad. Signed, Parliament." It has no legal weight whatsoever.

No, it calls for parliamentary investigation into "Islamophobia". If it were "discrimination against Muslims is bad. *bam* we're done" I would not have a problem with it. And if you think the results of this inquiry aren't going to influence binding policy decisions, then you're not aware of the absolute cluster fucks the federal and various provincial (especially Ontario) Human Rights Commissions are.

Well, first off, phrasing what you've said another way is saying "The government is investigating groups that discriminate based on religion, therefore the government should be a group that discriminates based on religion," which doesn't make a lick of sense. Secondly, can you provide some examples of these people who you feel were improperly targeted based on their views?

What discrimination? If M-103 calls for investigating private citizens and groups, who've done nothing wrong except maybe (MAYBE!) being a little bit politically incorrect, then all groups and all citizens are open to the same scrutiny. In which case, I go back to my original point - I'm not sure what rights you think I'm suggesting be violated when I call for investigations into mosques. Unless of course, M-103 is problematic.



darkknight109 posted...

It's worth noting that suffragettes, gay rights activists, and those advocating for granting non-whites equal status under the law were also once labelled as dangerous subversives who were undermining the moral and legal fabric of society. So no, I don't think that's a good enough reason.

They weren't crashing planes into buildings.

In fact, while I wouldn't say their movements were 100% non-violent, they were essentially movements rooted in western ideals. They didn't want to dismantle western values, they wanted in.

darkknight109 posted...

Canadian culture is strong enough that I have full confidence it can survive the airing of bad ideas. A few nutbars with barmy ideas are not going to rewrite 150 years of progress.

I want to believe that, but we've seen what's happened in Europe, and count our lucky stars there's a huge physical barrier between us. And major Islamization can happen within a single lifetime.

darkknight109 posted...

Here, I can prove it. Can you identify for me a single mosque - just one - who has succeeded in implementing sharia law, rolling back some element of Canadian progress, or, hell, just altering any law whatsoever? I mean, if this really is as big a threat as you're asking me to consider it, this should not be a problem - just one example from anywhere in Canada will do fine.

What that proves to me is their willingness to import the sort of ideas that caused their own nations to fail. Don't think for a second that ends at Sharia. puh-lease.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

They weren't crashing planes into buildings.

Neither are 1,799,999,996 Muslims.
---

adjl posted...

Neither are 1,799,999,996 Muslims.

How much is that compared to refugees though?
---

Is it terrible that I though TC was going to apologize on Canada's behalf for Justin Beiber?
---

JamieTheWhite posted...

adjl posted...

Neither are 1,799,999,996 Muslims.

How much is that compared to refugees though?

Of the 5 million people that have fled Syria in this refugee crisis, at least 5 million have never crashed a plane into a building for the purposes of inciting terror and inflicting massive loss of life.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Because I happened to be addressing a specific part of an article talking about Islam in particular and articulating how political correctness is keeping us from confronting the very real problems their incompatible culture.

You say this, but I know plenty of Muslims who aren't "incompatible" at all with Canadian culture. And thus far you haven't really specified what these "very real problems" are, beyond nebulous references to them providing some threat that requires them to be monitored.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Since M-103 is non-binding, it would be alarmist to say we're already there, but if that's any indication of how parliament thinks: then we're already there.

Parliament just said "Discrimination is bad." In what universe is that equivalent to saying "Free Speech is dead"?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

What if someone wants to say things that might, in some context, possibly be considered Islamophobic?

Then they should do the same thing when people want to say things that are homophobic (or racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory): point out that that's some real bullshit. They can (and should) disapprove of something without criminalizing it.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Should the government pass even a non-binding motion to have them, and really anyone in general, investigated for it?

Because that happened.

No, it didn't. It called for a study on how to reduce racism and religious discrimination and collect data on hate crimes - that's a far cry from saying that someone will be "investigated" for legal speech. Seriously, read the text of the motion, there's nothing even vaguely like what you said in there:

"Ms. Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills), seconded by Mr. Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard), moved, — 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-centred 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."

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Again, what rights?

The right to protection from unlawful search and seizure.

Investigating someone simply because "They're Muslims" is unlawful.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I've only advocated for treatment of Muslims that parliament has itself deemed acceptable for others.

Please point out another example of parliament justifying blanket monitoring/investigation of an entire demographic. Because, to the best of my knowledge, the only people you are allowed to investigate under Canadian law are:
1) Those who are under reasonable suspicion of having committed an unlawful act
2) Those who, through their actions, have suggested they may be planning an unlawful act (e.g. buying bomb-making materials).

Simply being a member of a demographic doesn't cut it. I mean, swap out "Muslim" for virtually anything else if you want to see how crazy this idea is. For instance, First Nations crime rates are higher than nearly any other racial demographic; does that mean we should monitor all reserves and investigate all FN associations out of a suspicion they may be harbouring criminals? No, that's dumb (and also tremendously racist).

Justifying the monitoring of Muslims out of a vague, non-specific fear they might be terrorists is much like interring the Japanese during WW2 out of a vague, non-specific fear they might secretly be spies and saboteurs. We know how history now judges the latter; do you really think future historians would view the former any differently?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

No, it calls for parliamentary investigation into "Islamophobia".

No, it doesn't. Refer to the text above. It calls for a study - not an investigation - on "reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia". Seriously, where are you getting your interpretation of this motion from, because it seems to bear no resemblance to what was actually passed.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

What discrimination?

Saying "Muslims are potential terrorists and should be monitored accordingly" is discrimination.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

If M-103 calls for investigating private citizens and groups

It doesn't, so the rest of this hypothetical is irrelevant.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

They weren't crashing planes into buildings.

Oh wow, I didn't realise that Canadian Muslims were crashing planes into buildings. Can you tell me which Canadian mosque has been training their Canadian Muslim adherents to do this, and which ones have carried out such crimes?

Man, I'm amazed I never saw this in the news. You'd think they'd report something like that.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

In fact, while I wouldn't say their movements were 100% non-violent

Good, because they 100% weren't. The Suffragettes, for instance, routinely turned to violence to make their voices heard - everything from vandalism (of the window-smashing variety) to arson of churches and homes of politicians. In the US, much as modern history likes to paint MLK as a peaceful pacifist (with Malcolm X as his violent counterpart), in reality King understood the need for violence to force the issue and was widely regarded at the time as a dangerous anarchist who provoked riots wherever he went. Gay rights supporters held riots and fought police in New York and San Francisco to get their own ideals heard.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

they were essentially movements rooted in western ideals

From a modern perspective, yes. From a historical perspective, absolutely not. Western society in the early 1800s was controlled exclusively by white males. Any suggestion that women or non-whites should have a say would have been considered both foreign and destructive ("Allow blacks to vote? What are we, some African tribe?!") as would any suggestion that gays weren't abhorrent heathens worthy of prison or death ("We're not some filthy pagans, we're righteous, God-fearing folk!").

They, in essence, dismantled the Western value of white superiority (which was absolutely a value that informed a great many policies at the time) and replaced it with a different (and far superior) value of equality.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I want to believe that, but we've seen what's happened in Europe, and count our lucky stars there's a huge physical barrier between us.

Right-wingers keep telling me what a hellhole Europe is these days what with all the Islam everywhere; my friends there act vaguely confused when I ask them about it. Then again, those same right-wingers used to tell me about what a hellhole Europe was what with all the socialism everywhere, so maybe I should be more critical of their claims.

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

And major Islamization can happen within a single lifetime.

It sure can, just like that time... uh...

Hmm.... you know what, I'm drawing a blank. Help me out here, when was a Western civilization turned into an Islamist civilization in the span of one lifetime in the last hundred years?

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

What that proves to me is their willingness to import the sort of ideas that caused their own nations to fail. Don't think for a second that ends at Sharia. puh-lease.

OK, then - what ideas have these radical mosques injected into the Canadian zeitgeist that has so poisoned our culture? They must have changed a law or custom somewhere but, again, it must have slipped my notice.
---

darkknight109 posted...

No, it doesn't. Refer to the text above. It calls for a study - not an investigation

investigation

transitive verb

: to observe or study by close examination and systematic inquiry
intransitive verb

: to make a systematic examination; especially : to conduct an official inquiry

I'm not even touching the rest of that.
---

When you're referring to an investigation in a legal context, it means something very different than a study. An investigation implies an exploration of facts, both public and private, with the intention of determining guilt and/or probable cause in a criminal matter. A study is merely analysis of publicly available facts.

So no, I stand by my assertion that M-103 doesn't call for anyone to be "investigated", as you've alleged several times in this topic; it simply calls for the study of a subject using already available public data. If you're objecting to that, you're objecting to the government analysing data, which seems silly to me.
---