Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Muslim Honor Killing in Kingston


Recommended Posts

That won't happen in any more of a meaningful way than what is done with aboriginal law. It will be taken under advisement by a judge at some time in the future possibly, but that doesn't mean it will hold much if any actual weight. Sharia law goes against fundamental principles of justice in many ways. This country's identity isn't going to disappear as easy as you think.

They have Sharia courts in Britain and their judgments are enforceable by the main courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 893
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They have Sharia courts in Britain and their judgments are enforceable by the main courts.

Then there would be oversight as well. The Sharia courts in the UK are madated only to deal with civil law. The Anglican church also has courts...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not inherently, no. It depends on the grounds by which you oppose it. If you oppose it because it's Muslim and you believe Islam is evil, than you're xenophobic. But, if you oppose it because you don't want multiple courts, and think one court for all is fine, than that's not a xenophobic reason.

You leave no room for a middle argument, which is that someone can view Sharia law, and the culture it represents and find it to be backwards, misogynistic and a crude carryover from the sixteenth century - all utterly factually correct - and oppose it for that reason. Is there no place in your world where judgment can ever come into place? Are you really THAT terrified of ever judging any group poorly according to the standards of western culture that you simply refuse to make any judgments at all?

Except, of course, in your rush to judge and accuse anyone who dares to say anything you consider unflattering about that group.

"Ohmygod! He's saying something bad about minorities! Ta-ta-ta-daaa! It's PC man to the rescue! With his ready supply of smears, pejorative terms and wild accusations of moral delinquency!"

You're just so heroic! In a patternalistic bleeding heart liberal way of course.

Do you have a leotard?

1 - You are not the majority, people who share your views (White Nationalism) are such a small minority in Canada that not even the old Reform-Conservative party members will go anywhere near you with a 10 foot pole.

What views are you talking about? If you really believe that distrust and dislike of Muslim cultural values really exists only among the fringe far right that can be collectively dismissed as "White Nationalists" you are even more wildly and even hilariously locked out of the mainstream there on your university campus than one usually finds among ivory tower "intellectuals".

Well, since Mosques in Canada don't sell that book, and because that book doesn't exist, I guess your campaign is done, right?

I think you're leaving this part out, aren't you?

If a woman's translation of the Koran is banned from an Islamic bookstore, what is available at such places. At one Toronto bookstore, the title of a gaudy paperback screamed at passersby: Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell. The book, which is also widely available in British libraries and mosques, lists the type of women who will face eternal damnation. Among them are:

• "The Grumbler ... the woman who complains against her husband every now and then is one of Hell."

• "The Woman Who Adorns Herself."

• "The Woman Who Apes Men, Tattoos, Cuts Hair Short and Alters Nature."

Not until the leadership of the Muslim clergy takes steps to end gender apartheid and misogyny will they be taken seriously when they say, "honour killing" is not permitted by Islam

Didn't you just quote a Tarek Fatah? Are you not aware that he wrote the following in an article the National Post the week:

"It is true that Islam's holy book, the Koran, does not sanction honour killings. But to deny the fact that many incidents of honour killings are conducted by Muslim fathers, sons and brothers, and that many victims are Muslim women, is to exercise intellectual dishonesty."

Again, you are deliberately leaving out what followed. so I guess you are cherry picking too.

As I said, it is true that the Koran does not sanction such murders, but man-made sharia law, which has been falsely imputed divine status, does allow for the killing of women if they indulge in pre-marital or extra-marital consensual sex.

Meaning - that there is a problem within the Canadian-Muslim community of discrimination and violence against women, but it is not a problem with the practice Islam in general.

It is a problem among Muslims throughout the world - in general. Everywhere. Just how blind are you that you cannot see that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then there would be oversight as well. The Sharia courts in the UK are madated only to deal with civil law. The Anglican church also has courts...

The difference is that the Anglican courts don't believe that you need the testimony of four women to equal one man, nor are their divorce rules so utterly, utterly unfair to women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bail for mass murderers to keep them safe? I can't see this happening but just the fact it is raised in this case is disgusting and worrisome.
Why even bother keeping them safe?

Heck, I wanted Madoff to be sentenced to unaccompanied release, at a pre-announced time on the golf course at Palm Beach Country Club or the corner of Park and 53rd Street in NYC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was it again that refused Jews admission into Canada and turned the boat around, the left?

I'm racking my brains trying to find any historical reference that the Jews planned supremacist conferences, no can't find anything. Same with the Christians and the atheist. Nope no Poles, Chinese had supremacy conferences either.

Oh look who's holding a conference for the radicals to discuss how achieve Islamic Supremacism over the rest of us, gee I wonder if there is any mention of that during the supporters of Honouring Killings whilst doing their history reserch??

Link: http://www.realcourage.org/2009/07/canada-...-group-to-meet/

Snippet: The Islamic supremacist Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) Canadian event is publicized on the Hizb ut-Tahrir web site as being sponsored by “Hizb ut-Tahrir Canada” as part of HT’s “2009 Khilafah Campaign,” which included the July 19, 2009 HT event in the Chicago Oak Lawn, IL suburb. HT has advertised this event to be held at the Canadian govt-managed facility in Mississauga for: “Friday, July 31st, 6.30PM to 8.30PM, Frank Bean Lounge — Mississauga Valley Community Center, 1275 Mississauga Valley Blvd, L5A 3R8.” The HT Canada event has also been promoted by a Toronto, Canada website called “TorontoMuslims.com”. (R.E.A.L. contacted this Toronto Muslim website to ask why they were promoting such a supremacist organization’s event, and received no reply.)

The Hizb ut-Tahrir web site promoting the July 31 event in Canada also promotes a pamphlet (page 62) that supports killing those individuals who leave Islam as guilty of “treason and a political attack on the Khilafah.”

End snippet:===============

Darn why won't we female Islamophobes just sit down and shut up and let the left lead us into to our future of negation, subjugation and eventually if the Pro-Sharia crowd get's their way they can cane us and stone us.

Why is the socialist left afraid to discuss Honour Killings? That in it's self is equally as troubling as Honour Killings.

Contrary to the progapanda from the Pro-Hamas crowd Muslims are not the new Jews their ideology is the new Nazism combined with the socialist's support we shall have strife in Canada as they join forces at conference like the above to retain Political Power and cultural supremacy in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for quoting me out of context. As my posting made clear, I was responding to someone's claim that the KKK is not a criminal organization.

And they're still not. You're confusing cause with effect. The KKK was formed after the US Civil War as a white supremist group in response to changes brought about what they called carpet-baggers. That they commited crimes was a violent sideline. The Mafia (as we know it) in North America is an actual criminal organization as it was formed by Lucky Luciano not to promote the Italian interests in America...not to make some sort of political statement. But, rather, to exploit loopholes in the US Justice system via criminal enterprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Although the majority of Muslims wanted Sharia law (which should show you something about the mentality involved) their numbers are simply not there yet to start acting up in a serious fashion.

A majority of Muslims wanted for them the same thing that other religious groups had already - arbitration mechanisms for civil ligations that would apply Sharia within the confines of Canadian laws. Whose word do you think had the most weight, by far, in orthodox Jewish arbitrations - man's or woman's? I am not in favour of religion-based arbitration mechanisms, but what is acceptable for others is acceptable for Muslims too, and what is unacceptable for any religious group is unacceptable for all.

Also, although I do not remember all the details, polls of the Muslim community taken at the time of the Sharia controversy showed that support for the idea was stronger among the young (the most likely to search for the identity as Muslims and Canadians) and recent immigrants. Looks to me like those with a longer contact with Canadian society are more like to want at least some form of integration.

However, if we look to Europe, to places like the UK and France, as well as some of the Nordic countries, w

e see a minority which has many, many members who are extraordinarily hostile towards those surrounding them, violently inclined, responsible for much crime, and making demands (ie, demands for Muslim only law, and no "outsiders" including police, into their areas (France, the UK, Netherlands). In every country where Muslims have any kind of numbers, we see violence, invariably originating in the demand from Muslims to be treated separately, to have separate law, and to be permitted to continue their barbaric cultural practices.

Muslims don't have those numbers in Canada, but on the other hand, their numbers are doubling every ten years.

If we look at Europe, we also other things that are very different from what we have in Canada. For starter, the policy of most European countires from the start has been to treat Muslim (and in general, non-European immigrants) like guest-workers as best, with virtually no possibility of joining the body politic by becoming citizens. Right-wing extremism, often violent, is another phenomenum far more present over there than here.

Of course, violence and extremism are still unaceptable, no matter who commits it. But we are a different society. Results will most liekly be different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And they're still not. You're confusing cause with effect. The KKK was formed after the US Civil War as a white supremist group in response to changes brought about what they called carpet-baggers. That they commited crimes was a violent sideline. The Mafia (as we know it) in North America is an actual criminal organization as it was formed by Lucky Luciano not to promote the Italian interests in America...not to make some sort of political statement. But, rather, to exploit loopholes in the US Justice system via criminal enterprise.

A white supremacist group, whose objective and modus operandi is to use violence, is committing crimes as a SIDELINE?

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
You leave no room for a middle argument, which is that someone can view Sharia law, and the culture it represents and find it to be backwards, misogynistic and a crude carryover from the sixteenth century - all utterly factually correct - and oppose it for that reason. Is there no place in your world where judgment can ever come into place? Are you really THAT terrified of ever judging any group poorly according to the standards of western culture that you simply refuse to make any judgments at all?

Except, of course, in your rush to judge and accuse anyone who dares to say anything you consider unflattering about that group.

We shall of course ignore the fact that you have a problem with about anyone who happens to be different from you. White neighbourhood anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see that group condemning the crime. In fact, in many of the nations populated by that group it isn't even a crime, really. That would tend to suggest they are fairly indifferent, at best, to this, and at worst, support it.

Nice to know that next time white racists beat up a Black man, we can count on you, as a white man, to denounce that crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We shall of course ignore the fact that you have a problem with about anyone who happens to be different from you. White neighbourhood anyone?

A regular Louis Farrakhan here...

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
True enough, but we do have a lifetime worth of social interaction within the society in question, and of speaking to members of this group, and to others of their experiences, and of course, reading reports of their actions and beliefs.

Social inteaction and speaking to them. Coming from somebody who prides himself on wanting to have anything to do with them.

My experience of interacting with some Muslims, of speaking with some Muslims, and of reading about Muslims who both refuse and want to integrate themselves and their identity as Muslims with the Canadian fabric has thought me that, like with any other group, the "one size fits all" mentality is non-sense.

Well why don't we just check that out? Ban immigrants from Muslim nations,

Good idea, let's ban women trying to flee Muslim countries. Or Egyptian Copts and Lebanese Maronites. Perhaps we should ban immigration from any country where the law still calls for lesser penalty for murder if it is committed by men against their wives (goodbye Columbia, Peru, Argentina), those where "honour" was the basis for societal acceptance of violence against women until not that long ago (no more Italians), and countries where some men will throw stones at women if they dare to go pray where they shouldn't (no immigration from Israel then).

Or we can adopt a LOGICAL approach, once that is based on a core concept of our societies, that autonomy of the individual. We set the rules and the fundamental principles of our society clearly, and those INDIVIDUALS who have a problem with those can stay where they are.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
My experience of interacting with some Muslims, of speaking with some Muslims, and of reading about Muslims who both refuse and want to integrate themselves and their identity as Muslims with the Canadian fabric has thought me that, like with any other group, the "one size fits all" mentality is non-sense.

It would be more relevant here to speak with murderers to see how several degrees in murder are possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So because those who predicted this were wrong then.... this means that any such predictions about any groups, however different, however numerous, are also wrong?

Not quite sure that is logically sound.

Using the past when trying to figure out what the future will be is actaully a lot more logically sound that ignoring the past because it does not fit one's prejudiced vision of the future.

I think I have already posted the huge differences between the adaptation of small groups (percentage wise) of the population back a half century or more ago and the much larger communities today,

You have stats about the percentage of immigrants them and now?

who watch satellite tv from "home", and travel back "home" every couple of years, as well as often sending their kids home to get married.
We are in 2009. Do you think that British immigrants in the 1850's would have not done the same if they have had satellite TVs and planes? Or is it a problem only if Muslims do it?
I think the real difference is that the world was so much larger back then that when you moved to Canada you MOVED to Canada. There was no going back. Your life would be here, henceforth and you had best learn to adapt. That sentiment seems to be lacking among many today. They're here because of a better lifestyle here, but their hearts remain in their homelands. And they remain members of that nationalist group - foreigners living among us.

How do you explain then cultural organizations, ethnic-based churches, separate banks, ethnic newspapers, ethnic neighbourhoods amongst past generations of immigrants? Those first generation immigrants were no less "foreigners", and perceived as such, than immigrants from today.

You will of course serve us the "but they were Europeans" argument. German immigrants came from a society where one of the most horrible crimes in human history was committed. Jewish and Polish immigrants in the USA were demanding the the US enter WWI on the German side. Immigrants from eastern Europe were a dominant factor in the rise of communist-inspired labour union in Canada. Sicilian immigrants to Canada were carrying with them Church lesson about those evil Protestants damned to the eternal fire and a conception of honour that demanded that a rapist marries his victim - against her will if necessary.

The "things were better then" argument ignores how things were then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have never had this large an influx of immigrants sustained for so many years. And huge numbers of those previous groups were basically British isles people whose cultural values were fairly close to the ones in place here at the time.

It used to be "most immigrants were Europeans". Now that it has been pointed that some European immigrants were from cultures with societal norms more akin tp the Middle East, it's Britons.. I should dig for statistics about crimes amongst past generations of Irish immigrants.

Edited by CANADIEN
Link to post
Share on other sites
A white supremacist group, whose objective and modus operandi is to use violence, is committing crimes as a SIDELINE?

:lol::lol::lol:

Yup. Just like the Nazis. Their ultimate goal was political...not criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...