Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Not sure why you are in denial, but in one link I provided it stated:  "In the houses, kitchens were fitted with powerful fans because most of the community likes to cook aromatic food. And given that Ahmadiyya Muslims are conservative about sex roles, houses were built with two living rooms — one for men, the other for women. Most home buyers in Peace Village have come from a Toronto community of about 30,000 Ahmadiyyas."   It is a village built for Muslims.

The development in Montreal I provided a link for was for Muslims only including Sharia mortgages and residents must adhere to Muslim values (modest dress etc.) but was turned down because it was not inclusive.   

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 1:10 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I am holding in my laughing as I ask for a cite.

Before you get all red for holding it all in.....here:

 

Plan to develop 100-home ‘Muslim community’ near Montreal gets rough reception

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/15/plan-to-develop-100-home-muslim-community-near-montreal-gets-rough-reception.html

 

 

Toronto city councillor says Muslim-only subsidized housing is acceptable

https://globalnews.ca/news/2187517/toronto-city-councillor-says-muslim-only-subsidized-housing-is-acceptable/

 

Vaughan council unanimously approves controversial Thornhill development

https://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/8390154-vaughan-council-unanimously-approves-controversial-thornhill-development/

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scribblet said:

Not sure why you are in denial, but in one link I provided it stated:  "In the houses, kitchens were fitted with powerful fans...

 

 

 

 

 

This is an example of how xenophobia overrules rationality: we have an example in the OP where non-Christians are LEGALLY PROHIBITED from buying in, and here you are equating it with homes equipped with powerful fans.  Go give your head a shake, your behaviour here is an example of what has gone wrong with our western traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people can link-storm me all they want.  I have friends who live in Jewish neighbourhoods, eastern European, or gay neighbourhoods also... and I could choose to live next door to them if I wanted to.  If you think that people choosing to live next to their own kind, their cousins and friends, is so bad... would you do it ?  If not, then maybe you are a strict multiculturalist yourself ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

And people can link-storm me all they want. 

Well?   Didn't you ask for it???? :lol:

 

I suppose cat got your tongue, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway.....what do they mean by SUBSIDIZED????

 

Who's subsidizing ths Muslim-Only community???

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 4:11 PM, dialamah said:

There is a town in Michigan where only practicing Christians are allowed to buy or inherit real estate.   The bylaw has been around since the 1940s, first passed to prevent Jews from buying, and was strengethened in 1986.  Non-Christians can rent.  The bylaw is being challenged in Court.  

Although this bylaw is clealy discriminatory, my initial reaction is its ok in this context.  If a group of people want to create their own community, they should be allowed to do so.  But I thought I would put it out here to hear other thoughts.

The article is a good read, btw, as it highlights the issues people are facing as the population has grown more progressive but the bylaw has not.

Doesn't it depend on what you  mean by 'practicing Christians'.   Aren't there any capitalists there then?   Good!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 11:11 AM, dialamah said:

If a group of people want to create their own community, they should be allowed to do so.  But I thought I would put it out here to hear other thoughts.

The article is a good read, btw, as it highlights the issues people are facing as the population has grown more progressive but the bylaw has not.

I think people are inconsistent in how they view such ideas, as evidenced by the response.  They are abhorred by the idea that Muslims would do that but scant comment on Christians.  The laws have declared that we have a national morality, that makes it illegal to deny people the right to associate based on different grounds.  It has worked fine, and encourages fraternization so let's keep them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, betsy said:

Anyway.....what do they mean by SUBSIDIZED????

 

Who's subsidizing ths Muslim-Only community???

Two sentences, seven question marks... that's all you have to know really.  And nothing about Christians using the laws to keep people they don't like out... fake Christians I mean...

Moving on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scribblet said:

Not sure why you are in denial, but in one link I provided it stated:  "In the houses, kitchens were fitted with powerful fans because most of the community likes to cook aromatic food. And given that Ahmadiyya Muslims are conservative about sex roles, houses were built with two living rooms — one for men, the other for women. Most home buyers in Peace Village have come from a Toronto community of about 30,000 Ahmadiyyas."   It is a village built for Muslims.

The development in Montreal I provided a link for was for Muslims only including Sharia mortgages and residents must adhere to Muslim values (modest dress etc.) but was turned down because it was not inclusive.   

Yes, they build these developments to draw certain people.   They also build communities around fairways to appeal to golfers.  But you wouldn't call them golf-only communities, since non-golfers could buy there if they wanted.  Nobody is saying that these communities aren't or won't be inhabited primarily by Muslims, merely disputing your claim of Muslim-only as part of the legal requirement for purchasing the home.   The town linked in the OP has an actual bylaw requiring that property be owned by Christians.  Which I notice you haven't bothered to comment on one way or the other.   So let me ask you directly:  do you support religions creating communities and using a law to exclude other religions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think people are inconsistent in how they view such ideas, as evidenced by the response.  They are abhorred by the idea that Muslims would do that but scant comment on Christians. 

True.  If Muslims are doing it, its wrong.  If Christians are doing it, not a problem.

The laws have declared that we have a national morality, that makes it illegal to deny people the right to associate based on different grounds.  It has worked fine, and encourages fraternization so let's keep them.

I didn't read all of Scribblet's links, but if the planned Montreal community really intended to dictate dress, I would not consider that acceptable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Penderyn said:

Doesn't it depend on what you  mean by 'practicing Christians'.   Aren't there any capitalists there then?   Good!    

Not sure what they mean by "practicing Christians"; at the time the bylaw was made, it meant "not Jewish" and for a while "not Black".  

Pretty sure there are capitalists there and doubt they'd agree with the idea that Christians can't be capitalists.

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Two sentences, seven question marks... that's all you have to know really.  And nothing about Christians using the laws to keep people they don't like out... fake Christians I mean...

Moving on...

A drive-by slur, I suppose?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, betsy said:

Anyway.....what do they mean by SUBSIDIZED????

Who's subsidizing ths Muslim-Only community???

I think we should delineate between projects that are funded via public subsidy in comparison with privately funded projects. In the early-to-mid 1990s many social housing complexes that were built in the Toronto region (and maybe elsewhere in Ontario?) were co-ops or similar projects that entailed the establishment of volunteer boards focused on meeting the needs of identifiable target groups. These boards did not as far as I'm aware put up their own money to build these projects. I know of a couple of these in downtown/central Toronto as friends have lived in them, but it's my understanding that neither specifically excludes consideration of members/tenants from outside the specified target groups provided applicants otherwise meet financial eligibility (i.e. subsidy) and/or functional (i.e. disability, age, etc.) criteria. In fact, it's my understanding that they can't discriminate. I suspect it is much more difficult to apply public obligations where privately funded projects are concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think people are inconsistent in how they view such ideas, as evidenced by the response.  They are abhorred by the idea that Muslims would do that but scant comment on Christians.  The laws have declared that we have a national morality, that makes it illegal to deny people the right to associate based on different grounds.  It has worked fine, and encourages fraternization so let's keep them.

I don't think Christians should keep others out but the original link was in the U.S. not Canada, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal here.

Meanwhile, you cast aspersions on me by suggesting I'm not telling the truth - I am reporting when is reported in the news - Muslim only communities.   If it doesn't stand up to the Constitutional test that's another issue but you cannot deny that these communities were and are being built for a specific group of people - all others not welcome, and I'd bet in particular Jewish people, but that's just my opinion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scribblet said:

1. I don't think Christians should keep others out but the original link was in the U.S. not Canada, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal here.

2. Meanwhile, you cast aspersions on me by suggesting I'm not telling the truth -

3. I am reporting when is reported in the news - Muslim only communities.   

4. If it doesn't stand up to the Constitutional test that's another issue but you cannot deny that these communities were and are being built for a specific group of people - all others not welcome, and I'd bet in particular Jewish people, but that's just my opinion.

1. I think it will end up being illegal there too.

2. I'm actually sorry if I was hard on you, however ....

3. YOU used the words "Muslim only" and they didn't appear in the article you quoted.

4. It doesn't have to if they don't deny entry to Christians... and yes they build similar communities for other religions, or they happen organically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dialamah said:

True.  If Muslims are doing it, its wrong.  If Christians are doing it, not a problem.

 didn't read all of Scribblet's links, but if the planned Montreal community really intended to dictate dress, I would not consider that acceptable.  

Nobody has said that, if Christians did it here I'm sure it would be decried, but no one wants to decry or accept that Muslims are doing it.  They did want to dictate dress as the link told us which was one of the reasons the development was turned down (in Quebec).   I believe it is now on hold because of it's requirements etc.  

BTW,  another person turned away from faith based subsidized housing

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/woman-upset-after-being-turned-away-from-faith-affiliated-social-housing-building-1.2533277

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think it will end up being illegal there too.

2. I'm actually sorry if I was hard on you, however ....

3. YOU used the words "Muslim only" and they didn't appear in the article you quoted.

4. It doesn't have to if they don't deny entry to Christians... and yes they build similar communities for other religions, or they happen organically.

More like they happen 'organically', in all the developments I've quoted they are specific in their needs and requirements, apparently only Quebec says no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, scribblet said:

if Christians did it here

Christians do do it here; your links provided two examples of communities intended to appeal to Catholics.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not sure what they mean by "practicing Christians"; at the time the bylaw was made, it meant "not Jewish" and for a while "not Black".  

Pretty sure there are capitalists there and doubt they'd agree with the idea that Christians can't be capitalists.

I'd take Jesus's opinion myself.    See Dives and Lazarus etc etc etc.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Peace Village is one of the first developments for Muslims in Canada, though it was not initially designed that way. Naseer Ahmad, the founder of the subdivision, is part of the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, which seeks to understand Islamic doctrine in light of modern developments. This Islamic sect is not universally accepted by other Muslims.

Quote

Mr. Ahmad had the idea to build homes to be marketed exclusively to the Ahmadiyya community. And Benny Marotta, president of Solmar, who was uncertain about how to develop a residential area so near to a mosque, agreed to collaborate with Mr. Ahmad. The developer would pay for the construction, but Mr. Ahmad would manage the process of selling the homes.

 

Quote

 

Mr. Ahmad worked with architects to design features in the mosque and in the homes to accommodate a Muslim lifestyle, like having industrial-strength vacuums installed in the shoe closets of the mosque to remove odors, as Muslims take off their shoes to pray.

In the houses, kitchens were fitted with powerful fans because most of the community likes to cook aromatic food. And given that Ahmadiyya Muslims are conservative about sex roles, houses were built with two living rooms — one for men, the other for women. Most home buyers in Peace Village have come from Toronto’s community of about 30,000 Ahmadiyyas.

 

 

The above is taken out of the article, and while it does not say with certainty that there are no, NON Muslims living there..... The article does suggest that very thing...Mr Ahmed is managing the selling the homes....and they are marketed exclusively to the Ahmadiyya community....."unless I misunderstood exclusively".....the homes do offer design changes that have their religion in mind....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2018 at 11:54 AM, Michael Hardner said:

No, it doesn't fit multiculturalism, or even plurality.  If you want to create the Balkans in the Americas it's a great first step.

Of course it could be multicultural.  Christians come from all over the world.  There are North American Christians, South American, Middle Eastern, pretty much from everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

Of course it could be multicultural.  Christians come from all over the world.  There are North American Christians, South American, Middle Eastern, pretty much from everywhere.

You missed the point.  Forcing people to move somewhere because of their background doesn't fit the model.

Multiculturalism is such a small change over melting pot, I don't know why people try to make so much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:24 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's not Muslim only if anyone can live there.  It's like saying Chinatown is Chinese only.

2. I have two living rooms.

There are lots of examples of people intimidating 'others' who try to move in.  We should not accept that if it happens here.

Shortly after the financial denouement those in seats of power might come to realize that the millions of idle hands are a liability, not an asset to the system as a whole, UNLESS, of course there is a group in power that depends on the idle hands as its power base (as has happened in Venezuela).

Then, in either instance, things will get really interesting.

Share this post


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.


×
×
  • Create New...