The implication you are making is that muslims in Canada and muslims immigrating to Canada are terrorists and should therefore be banned from Canada. Do I have that right?
Tea Party Group Protests American Muslim Relief Group Fundraiser
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
The implication you are making is that muslims in Canada and muslims immigrating to Canada are terrorists and should therefore be banned from Canada. Do I have that right?
I'd like to answer that for me personally. Because I have a similar opinion.
I merely wish to ban Islam in Canada. Muslims can immigrate to Canada, as freely as our system dictates.
But since Islam is a driving force in the reason why they immigrated here, the banning of Islam should be a welcome idea.
That sounds just like the way I fish. I keep the pickerel and throw all the walleyes back.
Really. I'd met an Ojibwe Muslima once. How would stopping them from coming have kept her out?
Yer hungry a lot aren't ya!!!
It's only an opinion, I have no intentions of ever trying to bring it to fruition, nor can I truly support it realistically.
Christianity and Islam have a lot in common. Both have been butchered and bastardized by schizophrenics and debutantes.
I agree, which is why I have no issues with Muslims, Christians, Sihks, or whatever, individually.
It's in the mob mentality that is manifested by organized religion that I find distaste.
Certainly not the vast majority. You might argue it's a majority depending on how recent you want to be.
Just a little diversion. Khalistan, the proposed name for the independent Sikh state, translates into "the land of the pure." Pakistan, which would border this new state, also means "the land of the pure". Normally one wouldn't draw conclusions from the names of countries. Names are often long established and their original meanings have no significance in modern language. But, Pakistan and Khalistan are recent fabrications with no historic basis. Calling your state "the land of pure" is significant.
Pakistan has no reason to exist other than for the sectarian prejudice of Indian Muslims who wanted their own "pure" Islamic state. Pakistan is not a "nation" in the old sense of the word. It is distinguished from India only in its religious homogeneity.
Khalistan would essentially be the same thing.
I don't know about you, but red flags go up for me when I hear of states (or proposed states) calling for religious division and "purity."
Tying this back to the topic, India is perhaps one of the most multicultural countries in the world (third largest Muslim population in the world by the way). In its very short history as a modern independent state, it has experienced its share of problems, sectarian and state violence, but it is becoming more stable, is an emerging economic powerhouse and remains the largest functioning democracy in the world. It's wayward sister, the "pure" Islamic Republic of Pakistan, on the other hand, has experienced no where near the same kind of stability. It has waffled between a democracy and military dictatorship throughout its history. Its current democratic compromise is tenuous at best. Sectarian violence (suggesting division) would be a strange thing to call the faith-based terrorism it experiences, as the country is religiously uniform (almost); and yet there it is.
Of course, one could easily point to other examples of where multiculturalism has failed in some states, but it does work in others. I'm against multiculturalism as an official government policy. I don't believe culture is within the competency of the state. But while multiculturalism shouldn't be policy, on the ground in Canada it is a fact. Some parts of Canada, not so much, but where I live there is no denying that multiple cultures exist. Monoculturalism, or "purity" as Indian Muslim nationalists and Sikh nationalists want to call it, has its problems just as multiculturalism has. But ask yourself, the violence in the former Yugoslavia was made possible by the fact that ethnic and religious groups lived side by side in a single coercive state which suddenly fell apart, but what caused the violence to break out? Did they kill each other over dreams of a multicultural Yugoslavia or did they kill each other because they dreamed of a homogeneous state?
You can say multiculturalism doesn't work if you want, but it is not for multiculturalism we have sectarian and nationalist violence. It's monoculturalism, "purity", what many of you advocate, that is the excuse for violence.
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny
The vast majority of recent terrorist acts in Canada were done by Sikhs, weren't they?
I believe the FLQ and Squamish 5 still top the ranks.
I kinda think the Air India thing tops anything that the FLQ did, but that's just my perspective.
No, you have that wrong, I never said all Muslims are terrorists, even tho all terrorists acts in western countries since 911, have been committed by Muslims.
My point is that our government has spent more money and time in last 5 years dealing with muslims than any other ethnic group, even tho they are a minority immigrant group.
They do not accept western valued and ways, they keep asking to have things there way ie singing in schoo !!
They have not done anything to advance the indepence of women in our country in fact they oppress women in the name of religion.
Etc
Etc
I have to admit this anti muslim thing is getting out of hand........ PEOPLE lets be ****ing rational you cant deny a group of people from coming here based on there religon or ethnicity. Thats some major hatred right there...................
Some of you people are messed up
Some of you people are messed up
Last edited:
Oh, and just WHO says so ??? God or you ??
I can reject anyone from coming into my house regardless of any of his/her characteristics !!
Canada is MY house, therefore We can chose to ban any group from coming into Canada that we chose to ban !!
If that is the case, then I want you out of my fu cking house, and take the rest of the brain dead bigots with you.
The one thing about democracy is that we are all free to express our opinions and our views. They do not have to be popular or polite.
Democracy is great, we now see people in Libya dieing to achieve it. But it is being fought back by one who wants full control over his people.
In this country we should never ever bow down to people who want to control others or twart their point of view by calling them names or swearing at them.
These type of people are dangerous to our freedom of expression and our democracy.
Stand up to them !!
Democracy is great, we now see people in Libya dieing to achieve it. But it is being fought back by one who wants full control over his people.
In this country we should never ever bow down to people who want to control others or twart their point of view by calling them names or swearing at them.
These type of people are dangerous to our freedom of expression and our democracy.
Stand up to them !!