Personally, I have always considered a bigot someone who makes negative generalizations about a group, and then uses that generalization against an individual ...

As an example "All Natives are drunks, since you're a native that means you're a drunk"

When you question the values and beliefs of a group you're not being a bigot but you will probably be labeled one by the supporters of the group anyway. Basically, it would be correct to question the Puritans about their Witch trials (and attempt to stop them) but they're going to retaliate by calling you a bigot.

It is incredible how otherwise sensible people seem to totally ingore an overwhelming body of evidence that Islam is an ideology (not a religion) that in practice is profoundly against nearly all core Western Liberal values.

Whatever the Koran may actually say about peace or war, or whatever Jihad may actually mean, the real-world evidence on the ground from every Muslim nation in the world, from every non-Muslim nation where Muslims have been allowed a foothold, the evidence is that Western Democracy and Islam are not compatible, and destined to be at war unless one side caves in.

Yet, right now, it looks like the West is caving in... I at a loss to understand this, and wonder how the historians will explain it. The best I can come up with is apathy and arrogance on the part of the West, living for the moment and not thinking about the future of our offspring, combined with an unhealthy dose of guilt about having dominated the world for so long, are responsible.

But I don't see why we should feel guilty. The West is obvious better than Africa, or the Middle East. Liberal democracy is patently better than Islamic theocracy. People are fleeing those lands in their millions to come to the West. Isn't that proof? What non-Muslim Canadian would want their children to grow up in a Muslim dominated, or even influenced, society?

The media has been successful in labeling any attempt to open discourse on this as an "extremist" phenomenon, and it does not help that so often people (including at this blog) use very aggressive discourse and violent imagery in the debate. But really, we have to have a societal discussion about this. We have to be able to ask questions, in public, like "why are we taking in Somali immigrants who then join a mosque that tells them that they should not participate in Canadian society in any way, and should have the goal of converting Canada to an Islamic nation.

I am not against Somali immigrants. I am against Somali immigrants who want to turn my land into a religious dictatorship and who make me worry that the subway train will blow up on the way to work. And since I can't tell which ones are going to be "good", and which are going to be trouble, I want none of them. I'd rather have some peaceful Koreans, for example, who have a much better record of intergration, and when they go nuts, at least they only kill each other.

WHY ARE WE NOT HAVING THIS DISCUSSION except in blogs in among our trusted family and friends??? The nation's future is at stake!

This bigot has been calling for the expulsion of all Muslims from North America since 9-11

That is the only way to protect our part of the world. It is insane to allow any of these crazies into our home lands.

All other races, colors and creeds are welcome.

Muslims begone.

The Muslim Creed:

American laws will protect us.

Democrats and Leftist will support us.

The UNO will legitimize us.

CAIR and MAB will incubate us.

The ACLU will support us.

Western Universities will educate us.

Mosques in the West will shelter us.

OPEC will finance us.

Moderate Muslims will fertilize us.

Hollywood will love us.

We will use your (West) welfare system.

We will take advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab America in the back as we did on 9/11 and 7/7, the Islamic way. We will say one thing on the camera (Islam is the religion of peace) and teach another thing (Quran 8:12 Terrorize and behead the infidels wherever you find them) to our children at home.

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from their earliest childhood. We will take over Europe first and then the U.S. will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the U.S.

Who are we? We are the “sleeper cells” next door.

Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Read the comments here about the Red Mosque opening in Pakistan and the radical mosque in Toronto.

From THEIR Toronto website for THEIR Toronto mosque:

Fataawa From al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah

It is prescribed for Muslims who have the misfortune to live in kaafir states to unite, to form bonds amongst themselves and cooperate with o­ne another, because that is a kind of cooperating in righteousness and piety

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

-----

http://www.khalidmosque.com/en/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=386&page=1

Read the comments here about the Red Mosque opening in Pakistan and the radical mosque in Toronto.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wredmosque1003/CommentStory/International/

From THEIR Toronto website for THEIR Toronto mosque:

Fataawa From al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah

It is prescribed for Muslims who have the misfortune to live in kaafir states to unite, to form bonds amongst themselves and cooperate with o­ne another, because that is a kind of cooperating in righteousness and piety

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

-----

http://www.khalidmosque.com/en/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=386&page=1

"And since I can't tell which ones are going to be "good", and which are going to be trouble, I want none of them. I'd rather have some peaceful Koreans, for example, who have a much better record of intergration, and when they go nuts, at least they only kill each other. "

Amazing - if you were at Virginia Tech, you would likely have a completely different opinion.

Even though I am not Muslim, I see your line of reasoning (profiling) impacting my freedom. If you want to have peace of mind on the subway, why not just safeguard the subway?

Kinda curious...

I turned on CBC to see how much the Leafs were losing by...it amuses me

I saw Little Mosque on...it got me thinking

TSN had the Leafs opener
CBC had Mosque

Wonder what the viewership at CBC was?

Anybody know?

rb - one incident involving a Korean at Virginia Tech does not a pattern of Korean behavior make. Serving that up was groveling for something, anything.

Want to share with us how subways can be safeguarded without effecting your personal freedom? We've been safeguarding airports worldwide now for decades with lots of personal freedom lost to all of us.

Oh, and, profiling, surveillance, wiretapping and whatever it takes to intercept and arrest terrorists here(see the recent Goose Creek, Florida arrest) and abroad is peace of mind. The 7/7 bombers in London and the last batch in Scotland were apprehended because they were caught on cameras. What part of that do you not get?

Your personal freedom whine comes across as pathetically narcissistic.

RB, there is no law obliging Canada to take anyone, from anywhere, into Canada.

Is Canada not entitled to choose to permit to live here those who will benefit this country? What's wrong with considering the national self-interest?

And so let's do a thought experiment. I'll use Koreans as a group, but I could use a dozen other immigrant nationalities. It goes like this:

All other things being equal, which group would you rather have come here.. Koreans (Buddhist or Christian) or Somali Muslims? Do you really think the two are equivalent?

This is about statistics, which ultimately are the only rational basis for making decisions for the future of a whole nation.

So, which group is more likely to provide more individuals who assimilate and integrate and contribute and pay taxes and raise their children to be proud and constructive Canadians?

Which group is more likely to provide more individuals that reject this country, isolate themselves and make no effort to join society, feel no gratitude for our taking them here and supporting them while they become established, use social welfare extensively, and be more likely to espouse an ideology that is diametrically opposed to our current belief system.

Finally, look at the real world. Is there any reason for concern from what is going on elsewhere in the world, that importing hundreds of thousands from one group vs the other, is more likely to cause societal upheaval and potential destruction.

I am not talking about individuals. There are bad and good ones in each group I am sure. But this is not personal. I don't know any of these people. I just want to give my children the best chance of growing up and living in as good acountry as I got to immigrate to 32 years ago.

penny, surveillance makes good sense and i do not see it as affecting my personal freedom. the reasoning in the first part of the quote from lori that i quoted went something like:

"And since I can't tell which ones are going to be "good", and which are going to be trouble, I want none of them"

this is a lazy and arbitrary way of protecting one's self that is insufficient for the task at hand. or maybe that's just my narcissism talking.

"this is a lazy and arbitrary way of protecting one's self that is insufficient for the task at hand. "

I respectfully disagree. Rational decisions are made on a statistical basis, and based on evidence of what has gone before and what is going on. This is the essence of my post above, to which I would wonder as to your response.

Lazy and arbitrary is saying that we can't control anything, or it would cause "too much dissension", so let's not talk about it, let's not try to figure out if one source of immigration is better than another, and let's just keep the status quo. THAT'S lazy

Religion is retarded. Enough said.

Religion is certainly not retarded and anyone who would say such a thing is badly in need of an education as well as some maturity.

Moral relativism is the main factor that is undermining our society's ability to respond to fundamental challenges. First deal with the idiots who preach and submit to, the relativistic garbage that comes from mainly the left ..... then you'll be able to deal with the real challenges.

Otherwise prepare to submit to people who do not share your refined respect for human decency and individual freedom let alone your egalitarian sensibilities of fairness social justice.

Well, if noticing the flaws in someone's religious beliefs makes you a bigot, then the Pope's a bigot. So either you've got nothing to worry about or you're in the best possible company.

That said, I live in Calgary, which has a substantial Moslem population. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of them are Sufis and Ismailis. Both those groups are seriously pacifist, and pose no threat to anybody. Al-Qaeda or the Taliban would put them all to the sword at once.

There certainly is an Islamist movement which is a deadly threat to us. It does not in any respect represent or speak for the Islamic world. You may recall last year when the Pope was widely attacked for speaking out against the Islamists. You almost certainly never heard about the response that was made by an unprecedented conclave of imams representing almost the entire spectrum of Moslem belief. They agreed with him and joined in condemning Islamism.

A blanket condemnation of Islam is counter-productive. Most of them are not dangerous and many of them are actually on our side. At the moment we have the direct danger from Islamism more or less under control; they are being made to fight on their own ground to protect their own bases. At the moment, the real threat comes from their allies, who are not at all Moslem but neo-Marxist. They use hostility against Islam as a pretext for hostility against religious belief in general, and against Christians in particular. They use the Islamists as weapons against the Western society which they too hate.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are the enemy. If you're a fan of theirs, you're collaborating with bin Laden, and you're far more dangerous than any of my Moslem neighbours.

I don't think the left does me any favours when it protects and encourages dangerous Islamists by claiming that they are due the rights and respect to which legitimate Moslems are entitled. And I don't think you're doing me any favours when you try to convince my Moslem neighbours that they have to turn to Islamism in self-defense, because otherwise you'll deprive them of their rights and the rewards of their honest labour.

Exactly, OMMAG. Perfectly said.

Religion isn't retarded; it's a beautiful creation of the human mind. I'm an atheist, but I certainly appreciate the reverence for life, for morality, and the compassion for each other, that is found within religion. I also claim that we don't need to 'be religious' to have those same qualities, but, religion as a guide to their constant expression, is important.

Yes, it's postmodern relativism that has rejected our right to reason, to critique, to think logically, to analyze. Instead, moral relativism insists that we must accept all beliefs and behaviour within a rational blindness.

And, the Liberal government, to better 'manage' the massive immigrant population coming into Ontario after WWII, set up that infamous doctrine of multiculturalism in our Charter. It insists that all peoples are defined, not as individuals, but within hereditary groups (ethnic, linguistic, religious) and that these groups trump individual rights. That means that emotions trump reason, because groups bond by emotion; only individuals reason, compare, dissent, critically analyze.

So, particularly in Ontario, we have been chastized into passive silence; we cannot critique groups, because our charter of multiculturalism insists that group beliefs and behaviour are 'rights' and are privileged and beyond criticism.

The problem with Islam is that it requires reformation. I disagree with some on this blog who claim that Islam cannot be reformed; it's a man-made ideology (and it IS a religion) and therefore, it can be reformed. Indeed, there are academic journals devoted to this same subject, written by Islamic scholars.

lori,

i don't think your korean vs. somali strawman addresses the point i'm making.

what model of terrorism are you reaching from the statistics that you cite above? from your continued references to national origin and ethnicity, are you implying that terrorism is genetic in origin? what understanding have you reached with regards to the nature of terrorism?

if terrorism is indeed genetic or defined by nationality, then i completely agree with the measures that you propose. but i don't think that is the case. there is some evidence that this phenomena is ideological in nature.

so (back to the point that i'm trying to make), the measures that you casually mention above would not address the root of the problem. it's not even clear that adopting these measures wouldn't prepare the ground for further ideological exploitation by the "bad" people.

"And I don't think you're doing me any favours when you try to convince my Moslem neighbours that they have to turn to Islamism in self-defense, because otherwise you'll deprive them of their rights and the rewards of their honest labour."

This is true. And the only argument I have ever heard on this issue that I could not refute (at least in my own mind). I do not have an answer to it.

I only wish that I could believe that your other statement was true: "At the moment we have the direct danger from Islamism more or less under control; they are being made to fight on their own ground to protect their own bases.". I wish it was true, but as I see ever increasing numbers of hooded and more recently veiled women in Toronto, and I read the sh!t in the aforementioned Somali Toronto mosque's web site, and read what is going on in Europe and England, I can't help but think that they are bringing the battle to us.

Moslems have been in Canada for 3 generations or more. They historially were highly educated, poly-lingual, and well off. If all our immigrants were like them I would be overjoyed.

But they do not represent the current wave, Not even a little bit. The current crop are very often uneducated tribesmen with extremely primitive views on women, barely english-speaking or non-englishspeaking, have extremely rigid interpretation of the Koran, and seem easily led and misled by fiery imams who appeal to their bewilderment with the society they have entered using the familiar language of the religion of their homeland.

ebt: "Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are the enemy."

from my reading of hitchens and dawkins, they focus on elevation of faith as a virtue to be the main problem with religion. dawkins in particular spreads the contempt around for all religions because they share this common trait. so it's not just Islam that they are "condemning" as you put it.

i actually agree with anon on this one.

bd: "are you implying that terrorism is genetic in origin?"

Aha, now you are trying to replace my so called "straw man" with one of your own.

I have no insight into genetic basis of terrorism. A priori, I doubt there is one, but I have no data. I believe terrorism is ideological of course, and Islam is an ideology (not just a religion) that is fertile for this kind of behaviour because of its history and imagery, and because Islam is over-represented in the world's poverty stricken regions. The poor and unedcuated are more easily exploited violently than those who have more to lose.

But that's all theoretical stuff for people to discuss in a leisurely manner. What's the bottom line?

My ability to read and see things with my own eyes tells me that Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc who migrate all over the globe in equal or great numbers to moslems, have had no major assimilation issues after the first generation. They were not connected to bombings of subways or trains, do not have innumberable "radical asian" sites showing videos of beheadings and advoating violent struggle against the West, even though the West certainly did not treat China or other countries in that region well. Further, people from those lands do not preach murder of homosexuals and virtual enslavement of women as part of their religion.

My ability to read tells a very different story about Islam in the world today.

I don't think only proof that some people are genetically bad is sufficient grounds for exclusion of entire groupsfrom entry. Such proof will never come, and probably does not exist.

I think that proof from experience that immigration from some countries is much more likely to fail than immigration from some others, regardless of the reason, is good enough.

We should be able to pick and choose who comes here for the greater good of those who live here now.

Bigot, Islamophobe, racist, close minded are all modern day substitution for the word heretic. Now all we are missing are burnings at the stake. A logical mind is a healthy mind.

Stereotypes are not useful for judging an individual, but act as a guide for approaching that individual. Certain stereotypes about races and religions did not emanate out of nowhere. I give other people the benefit of the doubt, but I also expect certain cultural stereotypes to emerge, and in general they usually do.

Islam, for instance, has a very abrasive cultural influence, which tends to alienate non-believers from it, and believers from within away from those outside. So to expect a Muslim to act in ways which contravene western cultural norms is not really a stereotype; it's called being prepared. Since the religion of Islam is based on the conversion of non-believers, and the conversion of secular states into Islamic ones, we can generally conclude that its adherents also want the same thing.

[i]Religion is retarded. Enough said.

Posted by: anon at October 4, 2007 1:18 PM [/i]

So is non-thinking rote critisism. One should consider and celebrate the moral underpinings of our society which religions have given us. They are so pervasive you will now reject that they have any (not necessary all) religion behind them.

RB,

Islam is the root of terrorism. They have spent the last 1450 or so years trying to convert the globe to islam, with violent means being their common method. That is not to say all muslims are terrorists or violent people. Most don't care about my religious beliefs. But without perfect mind reading techniques we will never seperate good from bad. We have radicallization of muslim generations born in the west, why should we import more?

When doctors cut a cancer out, they sacrifice healthy tissue to ensure to get the bad stuff. Apply this logic to immigration.

You wish to make us safe by survellance and law enforment. But why add to the problem and hope the police can catch EVERY act of terrorism? Lets minimize the potential by minimizing the offenders.

Then there are those who will not even allow our governments to monitor communications. I hate the need to have the government spy on me and my neighbors, but I understand the need. I would like to get rid of the need.

Words such as “Racist” & “Bigot” are reconstructed modern terms used by the politically correct left and extremist “warriors” as a weapon to shackle anyone standing in the way of their agendas. Who dares take on these labels and risk their friends, family, employment and possible imprisonment in today’s society? Yet these labels are no more easily slung than picking up the phone to make the accusations! Western societies have proved weak both of mind and spirit, and have allowed what was once great and promising to first implode from within then get picked over from its fringes. Religion right or wrong is the primary reason for the eventual downfall of the west. Turning the other cheek has led to a second blow with a baseball bat. Following behind is the greedy liberal PC crowd. I’m am not pleased that you the religious and politically correct have forced my children and grandchildren to live in your mess, but I suppose that would make me a “Bigot” right? I have worked and lived with Muslims and others throughout the world for about half my lifetime. Canada and the other western cultures need to maintain their western identities at all costs in order to survive! If that means some “intolerant” legislation is necessary then that’s what survival dictates. There is no shame in protecting what is good; there is shame in allowing 90% of the underdeveloped world to consume the remaining promise of a future.

The problem with religion "any religion" is that it can't stand competition. The only reason that mainstream christian religions have moderated is because their own people have turned away from them.
I personally would rather we not take in any more of the Islamic persuasion until they can prove that they are not under the control of their religion.
The Christian religion should be carefull who they throw rocks at, some of them may bounce back. I give you Salem. I give you RC Church instructions on how to efficiently dispatch Latin Americian heathans with a sword from horseback.
My point is that organised religion has been the source of strife as long as there has been religion. It seems to me that religious leaders like politicans want to control others and tell them how they should behave. Other wise do as I say not as I do

The fact that cannot be denied is that violence is foundational to Islam.

Most of the Quran commands violence and rewards the devout for fullfilling these commands. The same goes for the Hadith and Sira. The Quran presents Mohammad as the perfect example and the one for all Muslims to emulate. Mohammad was a proven mass-murderer (Check Muhammad's behaviour in his 78 military campaigns, including the stated reason for the campaign against the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, and his personal hand in the beheadings of the Jews of the Bani Qurayza). He was also a thief extraordinaire, rapist and a pedophile, who taught his men the same practices.

Regardless of sect, the root of all Islam is the Quran and Mohammad's life. If you remove the commands for perpetual violence in the Quran and abolish Mohammad, then Islam would become civilized, or reformed. It would also become redundant. Islams unique difference has always been violence to perpetuate arab political imperialism and supremacism, sanctified by allah.

-------------------

An interesting distinction:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." A Danish man who lived in Iran before the Revolution in 1979 noticed that if he suggested to his Muslim friends that he would like to enjoy some privacy for while, they thought he was crazy. The very notion of "privacy" was alien to them because it implies that you are an autonomous individual with needs of your own. A Muslim is simply an organic part of the Umma, the Islamic community.

Islam is a CULT!

I give you Salem. I give you RC Church instructions on how to efficiently dispatch Latin Americian heathans with a sword from horseback.

I give you a wake up call. History's instructive, but, ironically, you're saying we should be more worried, not less. Christianity's violent past was hundreds of years ago; the other is current. And we really don't know how it will turn out, you just assume it will moderate, and your assumption is unwarranted.
And try these spellings: American, heathen.

Let us not forget that the people busily ignoring/excusing the Islamofascisti at present are the exact same people who have been ignoring/excusing the Communists since 1917.

Power hungry scum and their useful idiots, pretty much.

The fast lane to dhimmitude:

This week, the House voted unanimously, 376-0, to recognize Islam’s holy month of Ramadan. The resolution commended Muslims and hailed the Islamic faith as “one of the great religions of the world.”

No one dared to vote against the resolution, but forty-two congressman mustered the nads to vote “present” on it, including, I’m happy to say, our own congressman, the Hon. Virgil Goode of Virginia’s Fifth District:

Forty-one Republicans, more than 20 percent of the caucus, and one Democrat voted “present” on a resolution recognizing the commencement of Ramadan on Tuesday.

The 42 lawmakers make up more than 10 percent of the members voting on the resolution. There were zero “no” votes, and 14 members did not vote.

The resolution recognized “the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world,” rejected “hatred, bigotry and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide” and “[commended] Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence and terror.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) dismissed the resolution as political correctness gone too far.

“This resolution is an example of the degree to which political correctness has captured the political and media elite in this country,” Tancredo said. “I am not opposed to commending any religion for their faith. The problem is that any attempt to do so for Jews or Christians is immediately condemned as ‘breaching’ the non-existent line between church and state by the same elite.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) said, “I voted ‘present’ because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

Would any Islamic state reciprocate? Doubtful when they're too busy killing kuffars.

No, irwin daisy, I don't think you can set up a 'savage/civilization' distinction on the grounds that the latter promotes privacy and individualism. You are operating from an axiom that privacy and individualism is THE BEST way to live. There isn't a universal law that states that it is.

The differentiation is economic. A non-individualistic economic mode - such as found in hunting/gathering, horticultural and non-industrial agricultural economies, are group-based, either within the extended family, clan, tribe. That's how that type of economy operates at its best. And it operates quite well.

A market economy, such as is found in late agricultural economies and industrialism, is individual based. It requires flexible workers who can move off the family/clan farm and go sell their labour anywhere - on anyone's farm, in a factory, whereever. The old simple agricultural economies didn't operate that way; every person's labour was required on that farm and the notion of 'selling only your labour', as an individual, was unheard of.

The industrial economy, with its flexible, go anywhere worker, can support a much larger population than the others. And, the industrial economy also requires individualism, because it requires rapid innovation of new technology. The other systems didn't change their technology with much speed.

As well, what you are rejecting, is that Islam can be modernized. You reject this possibility; I've read a fair bit of scholarship from Islamic scholars who insist that it can be reformed.
For example, see the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Vol 22, Summer 2005, No. 3, which had an issue on 'Debating Moderate Islam'.
There are blog sites on the same issue.

So - your adamanat rejection that Islam can be reformed means that for you, a billion and more people on this planet are effectively unacceptable?

Pointing to the violent past history of Christianity does not reassure me.

I think the lesson of Rome - an advanced and militarily powerful culture - falling to the barbarians is more relevant.

The barbarians had: the will to fight, the willingness to die, and little to lose.

The Romans had become decadent, consumed by material pursuit and trying to maintain what they had, rather than the pursuit for self improvement and growth that characterized the initial histor of Rome. Further the Romans went from citizen armies to mercenary armies. They bought their way out of trouble a few times, but eventually that failed.

Finally, Rome was weakened by a plague in 500 AD just before the barbarians sacked it. I think you can compare that plague to some of the things are going on in the Western world today: a chronic plague of obesity and diabetes, sapping our productivity and vigor, combined with any of a number of swords hanging over our heads from bird flu to Ebola or whatever. I'm not trying to sound biblical, just drawing the real and potential parallels.

Comparing the Salem witch trials to the violent past and present history of Islam seems so silly it does not merit a response. The Inquisition is a more reasonable comparison. It lasted about 300 years, and mostly was engaged in a war on Jews, although its other activities gathered more attention.

Muslim,Chtristian or Jew it's all a load of baloney. All it does is give people false hope.

By the way, relevant to the discussion today, fresh from everyone's favourite lefty newspaper, we have:

4 girls sexually assaulted by 8 boys, aged 12 - 13

http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Crime/article/263640

From the article, this school is in a "booming part of the city, with 786 students, many from visible minorities from South Asia, Somalia and the West Indies. Nearly two-thirds have a language other than English as their mother tongue, yet only one-quarter of students are new arrivals to Canada."

Of course, of course, details are yet to emerge. But does any of this surprise anyone here?

Is anyone surprised to find out that this is the Ontario Riding called Etobicoke North, where every candidate running for for a major party is Muslim?

Will this be yet another example of unsuccessful assimilation/immigration from parts of the world where we should not stuck our nose?

Irwin, ET, we wouldn't be having a problem with Islam in this country absent the mindless agitation of the Left.

In their effort to "level the playing field" as they are so fond of saying, the Left have actually tried to make everything the same as everything else. Christianity in all its variety = Islam = Judaism = Buddhism = atheist humanism. To do this equalization they have had to destroy our heritage.

If we were allowed to honour our heritage and act according to its precepts, unimpeded by constant sabotage paid for with tax dollars, we wouldn't be having any trouble with these Islamist morons.

As far as Canada is concerned it is IRRELEVANT if Islam can be reformed. We aren't an Islamic country, and there is no reason we need to deal with any of them except to take their money when they buy our stuff.

I personally welcome anyone who wants to pay their own way and live here in peace. Those who don't want to do that, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to stay. Reasonable?

"Personally, I have always considered a bigot someone who makes negative generalizations about a group, and then uses that generalization against an individual"

That's not a bigot, baby, that's a scientist. If we don't judge then how can we use good judgement? Forget what Sesame Street told you; you can, in fact, judge a book with a high degree of accuracy from it's cover.

"I personally welcome anyone who wants to pay their own way and live here in peace...Reasonable?"

Not to me. That's an endorsement of multiculturalism, and there is zero evidence that people with differing DNA can live together and get along without being forced to by the state.

Indeed, according to the best available science people with differing DNAs are inherently hostile to one another, and multiracial societies are less happy and more stressed than homogenous ones.

Sorry if this breaks your politically correct brains, but it's true.

ET,

It is a quote from Ayn Rand, with an observation from Fjordman added. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with him. I pointed it out as interesting.

Having said that, you are wrong anyhow. The defining Islamic characteristic is not simply economic, or tribal, it is that they consider themselves collectively the Ummah on a mission from allah. A distinction they hold above the individual, as well as citizenship in any nation state. The Ummah is the majority in dar al Islam and a minority in dar al Harb that is striving towards a time when the whole world is in submission to allah, or dar al Islam.

This is not a science project in a petrie dish.

I reject the possibility of reform in Islam without first editing out the commands for perpetual violence in the Quran (converted to law in the shariah), and the rejection of Mohammad as the perfect man to be emulated. The reasons for this are obvious.

"So - your adamanat rejection that Islam can be reformed means that for you, a billion and more people on this planet are effectively unacceptable?"

No. the doctrine of Islam is unacceptable for the continuation of freedom, democracy and in fact, life on this planet. I think the retrograde condition of Islamic states and its unending 1400 year violent history proves this without a doubt. Including some 9,400 terrorist incidents since 9/11.

Muslim,Christian or Jew it's all a load of crap.

Groups like CAIR have it all wrong.

It's not up to the west to tolerate the murderes in their midst who follow the tenets and believe it can best be carried out by The Sword of God.

It's up to CAIR to prove that a warrior cult which masquerades as a religion is accepted or rejected.

In other words, the west is not in crisis .. it's the image of Islam itself which has shown a face that's always been there the past 1400 years and it's up to them to prove to the west Islam is not a threat.

That is not accomplished by name-calling, since name-calling is about personality, not about ideas.

If all CAIR has as a defence is name-calling, then that very tactic tells us Islam does not strive for ideals, but for power over others.

There is a simple way out. Stop Canada's policy of "OPEN" immigration. Only five cou ntries of the world lhave it, all english speaking, the US, Britain, New Zealand Australia and Canada.
We have too many people now. BC Vancouver used to be a garden of Eden, Now it is a cesspool of teeming development that can't handle its own wastes, sewage, garbage,old, sick or poor.
Very little of this vast territory is liveable. Just the plains and valleys within a narrow ribbon along the 49th. Nearly all centres in the north not supported by a mine need steady infusions of cash by Ottawa, {us} to keep going.
Only allow immigrants with english language ability, education, a trade or profession or money. This will block 99% of the muslims. And it is not discriminatory . Demand this of your MP's.

So Andrew.... going to that KKK meeting tonight? Or are you more partial to Aryan Nation? Different DNA? Scientific proof? Cripes, you're even dumber than I thought.

The more I read the drivel you post, the more I think you're a liberal agent provocateur trying to get the sensible people here to post something racist you can then point to as proof of the conservative mind being unfit to live in modern society.

As I told you in another thread: begone, pest. Or to use your words "shut your cakehole". Your idiocies soil the discourse.

Score one broken brain for The Big A!

The Ontario election is providing an excellent example of people's feelings towards religion. When I first started working on John Tory's campaign I was reluctant to take part because of his policy of supporting faith-based schools as were a great many of the volunteers as we felt it was not where Ontarians wanted to go. This has proved to be exactly what we feared. Of the large amount of friends, family and other citizens I have spoken to not one, not one has supported this policy. The basic gut feeling is emotional and even when the policy is explained as being inclusive of all Ontario students there is a rejection of this logic.

One of the main comments was "I will not support my tax money going to support muslim schools and tomorrow's terrorists!" People see what is happening around the world with rising muslim violence and butchery and dont want it here.

People are becoming more secular and most, including Catholics, want our government to stop supporting the Catholic School board and have one public school system and zero funding for religious schools of any sort. Religion of almost any sort means less and less to people to the point where any religious display makes them uncomfortable.

The clergy of any religion knows you must create fear/guilt and be constantly tending your flock or they will wander away when they have not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion. This is what the muslims clerics fear about western values and will do anything to attack these values and keep their followers rigidly away from any contact with non-muslims.

ET, when the Malaysian supreme court will not allow someone to leave the muslim religion and islamists in British schools tear books they dont agree with out of their fellow students hands and berate them in British universities I don't have much hope for modernization of islam.

As it happens Andrew, according to the best available science culture is completely unconnected to heredity, except in large ways. Such as cultures always have some form of language, religion, marriage, kinship rules, gambling and racing.

That means you're an idiot, incidentally.

I agree with Caveman, you come across like a first year university student trying to act like a "red neck".

Please join that big long line of people over there waiting to k my a.

"Muslim,Christian or Jew it's all a load of crap."
Posted by: ok4ua at October 4, 2007 5:01 PM

Sort of, as soon as Islam is introduced into a western society, everything good turns to crap.

Ban Immigration, Start Emigration.

"I agree with Caveman"

In addition to the panties his mother laid out for him last evening, Phantom appears to be wearing an "I'm With Stupid" T-Shirt, possibly tied in a knot at the front.

"That means you're an idiot, incidentally."

Congratulations on being the 6,952nd consecutive jerkoff to *not* actually prove anything I said was wrong! You win a prize!

If you've got lots of data proving that multiculturalism has historically been a swell idea conducive with prosperity, harmony, and self-preservation then up it, puppet; otherwise don't ever backtalk me again.

'A curse on him who is lax in doing the lord's work. A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed'.
-Jeremia 48.10 (Motto of pope gregory V11).
(And the catholics were asleep at the switch, when they failed to get pedophilia enshrined in our constitution.)
There are people in Ottawa, who don't care who gets shoveled into this country- so long as they aren't white anglo- saxons!

lori, the west is caving in notfrom apathy or arrogrance but because western people are uneducated, stupid and immoral. when you throw away all that made your society great then what you have are stupid, immoral people. these people can be conqured by anyone with focus and power.

From a mosque operating in Toronto:

"It is prescribed for Muslims who have the misfortune to live in kaafir states to unite, to form bonds amongst themselves and cooperate with o­ne another, because that is a kind of cooperating in righteousness and piety.."

-----

http://www.khalidmosque.com/en/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=386&page=1

.

Whenever you enter a church of any kind, you must check your brain at the door.

However, no organization has murder on a grander scales than the Atheist states of the Soviet Union, Red China and Nazi Germany. When compared to these guys, the religionist groups are pikers.

Humanity simply is too stupid as a species to know how lucky we all are to simply have a shot at life on the once beautiful planet. We will find a way to blow every single time in every single generation. Perhaps we are just getting what we deserve.

.

"Ban immigration, Start emigration."

Congratulations Sounder. You successfully cut through the BS and offered up the only solution to the Muslim problem: Total separation between the West and the Muslim world. Not to split hairs, but I would have phrased it "Stop immigration, start deportations."

Either way, JP, works for me!

Dean and Lori, picking apart petti things like spelling or which example used is called not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Because the Christian religion reformed it's self into something more "human" does not mean Islam will, however it does not mean it woun't.
As I see it the people make themselves into sheeple in Islamic countries out of fear. What excuse do the sheeple of the western world have?
"WELFARE"

rb, people like you will never be safe. ommag, correct. dean spenser, 1400 years and islam is still doing it. folks, you could live next to a muslim for 20 years. watch his kids grow up with yours. if a jihadi had a gun and your neighbour had a gun and the jihadi was going to kill you. guess who is going to die?

for all those who like to quote the old testament. it is a history not a manual. with the execption of the 10 commandments. if islam would live by them we would all be better off.

ET: I believe as you do that Islam can be reformed, but there is little else other than economic pressure at this time forcing it to do so. I know that over long periods of time, socio-economic pressure can reform just about anything, but we are talking about conditions as they exist today ... and they don't pressure for much change among Muslims. In fact, the industrialized west panders to Islam. Reformation within Christianity took centuries ... yet my present concern doesn't have centuries to wait.

To this end, the problem is owned by Muslims themselves ... they must reform, not us. We are stuck with the choice of reforming ourselves into something Islam will tolerate, or protecting ourselves.

Let's also keep in mind that many Western Muslims are now arguing that Islam can't be reformed as it is ... it must be remade.

I understand that you are coming at this from an anthropologic point of view, but keeping history in mind, let's not forget that drastic "reformation" usually came at incredible human cost. If Islam reforms peacefully, it'll be a first.

"Muslim,Christian or Jew it's all a load of crap."
Posted by: ok4ua at October 4, 2007 5:01 PM

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists. It's debatable whether Hitler was; I suspect he used religion solely for manipulation.

Muslim,Chtristian or Jew it's all a load of baloney. All it does is give people false hope.

You know nothing of religion yet have the gall to claim it gives people false hope. The vacuous arrogance is astounding.

sheik yerbootie @ 5:56 PM said
'A curse on him who is lax in doing the lord's work. A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed'.
-Jeremia 48.10

You wanna play eisegesis? A classic one...
Matthew 27:5b + Luke 10:37b

:-)

John West @ 6.10PM
“Whenever you enter a church of any kind, you must check your brain at the door.”

Rather odd behaviour. Hope you're not making a habit of it. Personally, I check my pride at the door.

"One of the main comments was "I will not support my tax money going to support muslim schools and tomorrow's terrorists!" People see what is happening around the world with rising muslim violence and butchery and dont want it here."

Exactly David Hand. A quiet revolution, perpetrated by those who don't want to be labelled a bigot or racist by the multiculti fingerpointers for knowing the truth.

As far as Islam is concerned, you cannot reform a lie. I will make a post on this proving it tomorrow.

As far as Andrew is concerned, I think Caveman is right. The little shit has been hoisted by his own petard.

paul2 - my viewpoint has nothing to do with anthropology but with reason and logic - and a knowledge of history.

Yes, reformation of the Christian church took about 4 centuries - and very bloody centuries they were too. It coincided, as is the same in the Islamic world, with an economic and political upheaval and structural change. I think that 'things work faster' now in our electronic era, and the Islamic reformation will be accomplished faster.

I doubt if Islam will reform peacefully; no deep structural change ever occurs, in nature or in social systems, without great 'energy' costs. My point is that the US was exactly right to force the conflict back into the Muslim lands. It was moving out of the Muslim lands - thus leaving the reform motivation 'dead' - and instead, had changed into violence against the West. Rather than violence against their own Islamic strait-jacket.

It HAS to change; it can't remain as it is, which is a social, political and religious ideology that is operative only in a 7th century pastoral nomadic society. Non-industrial, medium size population, no capacity to adapt or change, focused on defending its land base against the rapid settlements of the agricultural economies of the ME (which were primarily Christian).

Right - they must reform. Not us. Therefore, we must reject multiculturalism, we must reject moral relativism, we must reject their demands that WE change when they move to our lands.

Whether the term is 'reform' or 'remade' isn't relevant; the point is, as an ideology and mode of life, it can't remain as it is, in the modern world.

And no, total separation between the Islam and Western world is quite frankly, nonsense. This is the 21st century; you can't isolate people, billions of people. They will interact electronically, economically, and physically. The important thing is that the ME must industrialize and become democratic.

and in the West, what must be done - is no multicultural accomodation.

(And the catholics were asleep at the switch, when they failed to get pedophilia enshrined in our constitution.)
Posted by: sheik yerbootie at October 4, 2007 5:56 PM

I didn't know Gordon Stuckless and John Roby were Catholic priests, or that the Catholic church ran Upper Canada College and Maple Leaf Gardens or the Bountiful commune in BC..

Did they run the New Brunswick's Kingsclear Youth Training Centre as well?. How about the Grandview Training School in Cambridge, did they run that place as well? The Boy Scouts? Hmm?

Did they also run the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf?

Those dirty Catholic priests sneaking into all those homes and molesting those children while the mommies and "daddies" slept!

And then Catholic priests went on United Nations peacekeeping missions disguised as peacekeepers! The dirty scum! And did you know that they even infiltrated the Anglican church?

And don't forget those evil Catholic priests even infiltrated the public school system and did the same thing!
Why sometimes they even disguised themselves as "mommies" so they could do even more dirt! There is no end to what those filthy Catholics will get up too! Did you know that they infiltrated the parliamentary system and lowered the age of consent?
I hear that they are even disguising themselves as officers of the court to permit further acts of debauchery?

Your a fn idiot sheik yerbootie, and you can kiss my Catholic a&&.
not the anon at October 4, 2007 1:18 PM

"As far as Andrew is concerned, I think Caveman is right. The little shit has been hoisted by his own petard."

This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged.

Have some consideration for those of us who have jobs, Irwin Toy, and watch your language. Let's see your liberal data supporting your liberal position which conflicts with Uncle Andrew's cold, hard data. Or shut up.

I'm with Andrew on this one. Put up or SHUTUP!

Thanks ET: My thoughts ... just articulated better. Isolation; no ... but incredible caution.

My personal concern is that large numbers of Islamic immigrants tend to form enclaves, where the "old" ways are reinforced and enforced. I can't think of a single case of large scale immigration from Muslim countries to any non-Muslim region where enclaves, then strife, didn't follow.

"One of the main comments was "I will not support my tax money going to support muslim schools and tomorrow's terrorists!" People see what is happening around the world with rising muslim violence and butchery and dont want it here."

A quiet revolution, David Hand. Against the fear of being labelled a racist, or bigot by leftists, fact based reason will triumph.

You cannot reform a lie. I will post irrefutable evidence based on Mohammad and his method, otherwise known as the Quran, tomorrow.

I agree with Caveman. Andrew has been hoisted by his own petard. Check his posts several months ago.

Let's keep the name calling down folks; and watch the language. Otherwise, have at'er.

From Jihad Watch: Hirsi Ali: "...There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't all follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018370.php

From Jihad Watch: Interview of Hirsi Ali by Reason magazine:

"When the interviewer asked her if she thought Islam could bring about positive social change in the same way that religious Protestants helped end US slavery, and Catholicism helped end communism in Poland, she responded sharply:"

Hirsi Ali: "Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims."

Reason: "Don't you mean defeating radical Islam?"

Hirsi Ali: "No. Islam, period. Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018370.php

Hirsi Ali has bigger balls and courage than all our political jackals in DC.

"I'm with Andrew on this one. Put up or SHUTUP!" - anon

'Nuff said.

ET,

I agree with much of what you say. The straight jacket of multiculturalism, pcism. PoMo, etc, drags against reason. However, you compare all religions as equal. Let me restate an assertion: Islam, fundamentally is based on foundational violence against all that will not join, or would leave; Christianity is not. In fact, most other religions are not. With exception. For example, Sikhism is a result of pacifist Hinduiism - primarily brought about as a militant answer to muslim aggression. 80 million Hindus exterminated by Islam.

Thought and belief as virus.

Based on historical record, I maintain that Islam = death. It cannot be reformed. It is a 7th century secretion of the Arab mind. Think about it. What is the number one name of muslim males, regardless of culture? Why do once great cultures embrace Arabic, despite the fact they can't even read it, or write it?

It is an ultra violent lie, perpetrated by enforced ignorance. Not comparable to anything else. In that respect, without editing the Quran, without the removal of Mohammad, there will always be violence amongst the devout. Nice Muslim parents, produce terrorist child.

But in the meantime, Islam is a useful ally to leftists. Anarchy creates change.

Ahmadinejad and Bolivia.

Apollyon, I'll second that motion! She surely is one smart, brave, focused and frank woman. We need to be listening to those who KNOW Islam first hand. Our opinions cannot possibly substitute for stark truth.

Based on historical record, I maintain that Islam = death. It cannot be reformed…….It is an ultra violent lie, perpetrated by enforced ignorance. Not comparable to anything else.

Multiculturalism has been an unmitigated disaster in the West. Speaking as an American it has been catastrophic here and our political cowards choose to address symptoms and ignore the cause. Our kids are getting dumber by the generation, pockets of our nation are becoming balkanized and our societal rot encourages this degeneracy. Our liberal plague is so endemic it may not be remedied at the ballot box; Americans will tolerate only so much and it seems our political jackals are trying to find out where that breaking point is.

Like Hirsi Ali, the only trustworthy Muslim is an apostate.

Interesting article about kow tow'ing to Islam in the US Congress at:

http://foehammer.net/2007/10/has-the-united-states-already-submitted-to-islam.html

irwin daisy - I do NOT compare all religions as equal. I analyze religions and consider their socioeconomic origins. After all, they are created by human beings.

So- Judaism is a tribal religion, ie, it confines its membership to hereditary descendants. Interestingly, its hereditary connections are matrilineal rather than patrilineal. That suggests to me, that the early Jewish economy was based primarily around gardens and the work of the women. That is, the original Jewish society was small population (smaller than patrilineal economies), settled and reasonably self-sufficient. It is not a converting religion; it doesn't seek to convert and add members.

Later Judaism went through various reforms, but these did not change that hereditary membership; they just adapted it to the economies of the time, ie, market economy, industrial economy etc.

Christianity is a religion that I analyze as emerging within an expanding population and economic base - and economy that was settling people into settled agricultural rather than migrating lifestyles. This was due in part to both the expanding population and the Roman infrastructure of roads, irrigation and money, that enabled a connected market economy. The Christian religion is focused on different peoples 'being neighbours', getting along, collaborating. This is obviously an ideology that arose to enable an expanding economy of settlements that required peaceful interaction. Christianity is also, importantly, NOT hereditary. You CHOOSE to belong - and that enables expansion into formerly hostile neighbours.

Islam, in my view, is a reaction to the Christian expansion settlements, that were encroaching on their lands. Islam is a sociopolitical and economic ideology that is very obviously based around pastoral nomadism, ie, an economy based around herding animals. This requires a large land base with a lot of land left fallow. Christian settlements were encroaching on this, and Islam developed as a militant and violent reaction to this.

Christianity was politicized by the church, which set itself up as a political and economic power in the 4th and 5th centuries...and this enormous control lasted until the reformation, when the economic control moved back to the control of the people during the reformation.

So- I don't discuss religions as equal. I analyze their historic emergence..and discuss changes that are needed.

Current Islam has to be changed; it's suitable only within its original nature and unsuitable for a modern society and economy.

Agreed, paul - immigrants form enclaves. A lot of that is encouraged by our multiculturalism. And a lot is encouraged by their religion.

I would gently suggest that if you want to ponder Islam you should have a minimum notion as to its motives, methods and mandate. Its quite simple, spend a day scanning the Quran. I would bet that 9 out of 10 normal non muslims would come to a similar conclusion. A tip or two....remember, believing muslims do not have a "western mindset" and that vile creature that Allah and Mohammed PTUI are always encouraging the believer to convert, destroy, rob, rape, sell, humiliate, murder.....that would be you if you are not a muslim.

Reform Islam? Destruction would be the only reform Islam might acknowledge.

Its a thin book and it will vaccinate you. Please read it.

Up Constantinople.

Believe me, there is no such thing as a liberal or secular muslim, if you scratch the surface alittle, there is a fundalmenalist underneath!!

If by "reforming Islam" commenters here mean "mulims adopting western ideals" then you fail to understand the religious mind.

I am a Christian and I don't want to adopt 'western ideals'. I view western ideals as base, evil, secular humanist pap verging on the Satanic in belief and practice and I reject them for all these reasons. As a Christian I have an obligation before Yahweh to bring as many as I can to a knowlege of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ. However as a Christian I am forbidden to take up weapons to force a non-believer to accept Jesus as Savior and Lord. The only tools I have to bring this transformation of the non-believer is the life I lead and the words I speak.

Likewise the religious Muslim views western ideals as base, evil, secular humanist pap verging on the Satanic in belief and practice and thus rejects it. He believes he has a mandate from Allah that he must bring as many people as he can to a place of submission to Allah aka Islam. Unfortunately for the rest of humanity the religious Muslim is not forbidden from resorting to violence and in fact is commanded to use violence, deceipt or physical threat to impose Islam on the infidel.

I have been a Christian for over 30 years and in proclaiming the Gospel have suffered physical threats and shunnings from all sorts, religious and non religious alike. These rejections have not made me want to adopt 'western' ways and in fact have served only to deepen my convictions and like St Paul more bold in my declaration of the Gospel.

Likewise attempts to modernize Islam will fail. Why would a religious Muslim modify his beliefs and practices to assuage the bleating of the west which he views as evil infidels?

Using the words of Jesus "Does one pick figs from thorn bushes?" to explain the thoughts of the religious mind. I don't ask Satan (western culture) to show me Yahweh's will, I read my Bible and attend Church. The religious Muslim doesn't ask Satan (western society) to learn Allah's ordained practices, he reads his Qu'ran and attends Mosque.

BL@KBIRD at October 4, 2007 9:46 PM

It's interesting that Blogging Tories, which routinely links to discussions on SDA, will not link to this discussion which has more action in it than every single current blog link on their web site put together.

It shows that "mainstream" politicians still are afraid to touch this topic with a 10 foot link.

Oddly, Blogging Tories will link to places like Mesopotamia West, which have a strong anti-Islam message.

lori,

i see that you have in interest in reforming immigration policy - i do agree with the direction that you indicate with respect to this; however, it seems maybe the link to a potential threat is a bit tenuous.

i think stopping terrorism at the embassy (via visa restrictions) is not the right approach - maybe it will work for stopping SARS or Ebola, but ultimately all anti-terrorism efforts need to be informed by the intelligence community. i was under the impression that you had some link demonstrating that the intelligence community had advised such an action, but the statistics and arguments you've provided so far do not suggest this.

i don't even think the intelligence community would endorse your proposal - imagine how much more difficult it would have been if the 9/11 or 7/7 terrorists were in the country illegally - no paper trail or documentation on them? clearly our guys need as much engagement as possible with those that would conspire. hope this clears things up.

hi dkjones,

When doctors cut a cancer out, they sacrifice healthy tissue to ensure to get the bad stuff. Apply this logic to immigration.

as i mentioned to lori, i don't agree with the medical analogies. stopping the movement of people doesn't stop the communication of ideas. in today's world, it's not inconceivable for some radical cleric in some mosque in saudi arabia or pakistan to teleconference in to some place in any western city and give a speech. if bin laden can regale us by videotape from some cave, there's really no limit and the real problem is one of intelligence, not immigration.

But why add to the problem and hope the police can catch EVERY act of terrorism? Lets minimize the potential by minimizing the offenders.

i have to agree that another terrorist attack is on the horizon at some time. as i mentioned to lori, i haven't read anything from the intelligence community - our primary defense against terrorism - advocating this kind of "anti-muslim" visa policy; in particular, how it would affect (even undermine) their work and also how much further it would push out the next terrorist attack? we have porous borders so i'm under no illusion that even a strict visa policy has much weight for a determined attacker. the bottom line is that we need input from the intelligence community. perhaps you have some you could share?

Then there are those who will not even allow our governments to monitor communications. I hate the need to have the government spy on me and my neighbors, but I understand the need. I would like to get rid of the need.

hard to say where this will lead. i'm in the data warehousing industry and there's lots they can do with data these days. lots of inference work, etc.. ultimately we might all be leading very public lives the way technology is developing.

rb - Part of the problem is that precisely the kind of statistics you wish we had, and the opinions you wondered if I heard expressed, are not available because the topic considered so taboo that no one is willing to gather the data.

Surely it is possible to gather stats on:
-what percentage of immigrants from which country pay taxes within 3 years of arrival, vs those that are on social assistance
-what percentage of immigrants from which country bring in how many family members per immigrant on "family unification"
-what percentage of immigrants from which country have how many doctors visits for medical and psychiatric problems
-what percentage of immigrants from which country have criminal convictions
-what percertage from which country segregate into their own ethnic enclave

But no one dares gather those stats because they would be accused of racism, of not considering the impact of the data on the "public at large", etc etc. So, a few mandarins somewhere in Ottawa may have some of this data, do not consider Canadians competent to interpret it, and god knows what troubles we are unnecessarily importing.

Further, I would bet (but naturally have no data to back this up) that people who work in national security believe that profiling on the basis of ethnic and racial origin is more efficient and effective than not doing so, but the political culture does not permit this option.

My frustration comes largely from the fact that we are not permitted even to ask the questions, let along get the answers and interpret them.

lori - those stats are available. You'd have to correlate separate stats, eg. immigrants and welfare, immigrants and criminal convictions - and this may already be done but the correlations may not be available on the Stats Canada website.

Lori, excellent questions and if it is ever possible to ask them and you find out the answer shows that it is muslims what do you do? These questions have been answered to a great extent in many Europian countries with unemployment 300% greater in muslims, high welfare usage and so on but as politicians seek the muslim vote nothing is done.

We got into this discussion last night with several friends from my wife's company, a large accounting firm. They have now set aside a special room that muslims use for praying, never had one for any other religion. When I asked why would they do that the reply was, just being accomodating. Pressing on I asked when they ask for footbaths, seperate rooms for the females and additional time for praying will the firm also accomodate them? "I guess so" was the reply.

One long time personal friend who travels to Europe a lot for the firm said she could not believe the changes taking place in places like Brussels or London with the surge in muslims everywhere.

I always enjoy the philosophical discussions on SDA but this stuff is real and happening all the time. The answer may not be stopping muslim immigration but the old saw of when you are in a hole the first thing you do is stop digging seems to appropriate here.

david hand - the accomodation that you outline, ie, a room for praying, doesn't seem outrageous to me. If their religion requires praying five times a day - then, allowing them to do this, doesn't seem to me a problem.

I'm an atheist; praying to a man-made idea seems absurd, but, my view has to be irrelevant.
What would be an issue of concern, would be when these people insisted that YOU change YOUR lifestyle to accomodate THEM. That's when the 'walls should go up- and the answer should be 'NO'.

So, if they were to insist that the male and female employees be segretated - the answer would have to be 'no'. If they insist that you can't keep a piggy bank on your desk, that their veiled women be allowed to vote without visual identification and so on - the answer has to be 'No'.

These rituals and ideologies, will, I hope, reduce over time. The problem is that the world has, since WWII, become global and previously isolated cultures have opened; their members have migrated to Europe and N. America. Because they were formerly isolate, and quite frankly, living within a 7th c ideology, they haven't modernized their beliefs and behaviour.

I'm going to say that these beliefs and behaviour WILL modernize. Many of you won't accept this, but, it's not only a biological truism that different species can, over time, merge some of their identities, but, socially, different ethnic groups do, over time, merge and accomodate and change each other. It's happened in Europe often, as European populations mixed and merged.

The big problem in this opening of the ME countries to the world, is their own conflict. They have a 7th c ideology; Islam is a social and political mode of life, defined as a religion. That makes it difficult to challenge its axioms and modernize them. But the ME peoples can't stay within this 7th c. lifestyle.

The conflict has resulted in the rise of Islamic fascism. They have to deal with this conflict and modernize Islam to enable its practioners to function in a global industrial and diverse world. This is a violent conflict, and the US was exactly right to push this conflict back into the ME.

BUT, in the West, we may accomodate them up to a point, BUT, we must insist that WE and our beliefs are not negotiable. We don't and won't operate according to their beliefs and we must insist that they do not ask or expect us to be 'like them'. So, if they choose to live, as citizens in the West, that means that they must obey our civic laws - equality of women, free speech, separation of church and state, etc.

We have to stand up for these basic rules, which we in the West fought long and hard for, but, minor accomdations are not part of these rules.

ET: I agree with accomodating all religions to a certian degree. My problem with Islam in the West is that it often asks for accomodations that are seldom given in Muslim countries; ie, foot-baths; and special decorations during ramadan. It's a way for the Muslim extremists to use our ignorance in order to push the boundaries of our sensibility. There is nothing worse than uneducated and ignorant progressive bureaucrats offering concessions that aren't even given in Muslim countries.

Take a look at this, yes I know Memri is a Jewish run site, although I have yet to see anyone show where their translations were wrong.

"Does Religious Law Permit Visiting Egyptian Pyramids?"

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD173207

Wearing a veil is no more offensive than wearing a yarmulke. I don't in any event concede that you have the right to decide how anybody else should dress. Nobody died and made you queen. If you don't like how your neighbours dress in Toronto, shut up and move to Orangeville.

ET, in my view setting up a prayer room is just a foot in the door. At my son's university in Guelph there are demands for footbaths, special foods, special handling and seperation of these foods, on campus prayer rooms, seperate times for women only to use the pool and on and on. Could you go to Saudia Arabia and wear openly a Christian cross or even find a church or pray at your office, being a woman you probably wont be allowed to be in a office anyway.

You know the environment of work here in Canada when as a muslim you came here, why should businesses especially small ones have to change their practices to suit you?

EBT, wearing a veil is not a muslim religious requirement it is a political statement forced on women to render them invisible to men in society. It is certainly not the same as a yarmulke and why should I have to move from where I grew up but I probably will because Toronto is becoming increasingly alien to me.

It becomes painful to read asinine attempts at deciphering Isalm by folks who do not know it. I don't mean to be rude but forget all you think you know about Islam and actually find out about it . Read the Quran , the accepted Hadiths The sunna of Mohammed. Speculation from a western mindset is horseshit and useless. There is indeed a bogey man out there folks. Check out some islamic porn (beheadings done by 12 year olds etc.)Step outside your insulated world and come to know evil. Learn about Islams plan for you.

I'm on the fly. But I'd like to thank Joe for his excellent post: an honest and helpful analysis, IMO.

I say Amen.

I had to become Muslim to marry my wife who is Malay, I get to see the good and the bad of Islam. My wife stayed here because there is no way she was going to raise her daughter in a Islamic society. I think that says it all.

Our own culture war between the politically correct Left who is rolling over for our muslim immigants and the more realistic freedom loving common sense Right who say enough ... will have to be fought violently and won and perhaps a military coupe in the US and Canadian governments will need to happen. New constitutions will need to be written and new strictly enforced laws will need come into effect .................................................................... If we are to prevent the Jihad from taking us over.

Print this out and put on your fridge door. Read it ten years from now and tell me I am wrong.