|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 6:02:06 GMT -5
I guess I must be weak-minded and weak-hearted... The international military operation to free these women is not coming, because the peaceniks don't want to get involved. ehum.. I wonder where the international military operation was when the Israelites killed every one but the virgins & "kept them for themselves." Must have been "peaceniks" around that didn't rescue them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 27, 2015 9:26:16 GMT -5
I guess I must be weak-minded and weak-hearted... The international military operation to free these women is not coming, because the peaceniks don't want to get involved. Do you see any irony in your labelling of "peaceniks" when you belong to a church officially designated CO by the US government?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 27, 2015 9:39:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 27, 2015 13:03:51 GMT -5
Oh my! That's just the tip of the iceberg really. While it's true that domestic abuse is part of it, it's just as much a part of the non aboriginal population. I have had the unique life experience to be quite close to the aboriginal community because my husband grew up on the doorstep of a reserve and went to school with a lot of them in a small community. They became lifelong friends and we were on the reserve a lot. Yes, there is domestic abuse. But most of the women that went missing from my friends on that reserve went missing off the reserve. They weren't killed by their family or husband on the reserve. My SIL was a nurse on the northern reserves for many years and again, from what I have heard from her, yes there is domestic violence, but it's the ones that left that had a larger number go missing or are known to have been murdered. The conservatives seem to be trying to place the bulk of the blame on the Native communities and it just isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 27, 2015 14:31:15 GMT -5
Another person paid with his life for daring to condemn extremism and advocate secularism: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-31656222It's good to see that courageous people in Bangladesh are protesting his death.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 27, 2015 14:42:24 GMT -5
Some statistics...RCMP says 88 and 89 percent solve rates for murders for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal-virtually the same. Between 1980 and 2012, 14 per cent of female murder victims with a known ethnicity were aboriginal, far exceeding their 4 per cent share of the female population, according to Statistics Canada. But 17 per cent of male murder victims were also aboriginal during that time. In total, nearly 2,500 aboriginal people were murdered in the past three decades: 1,750 male, 745 female and one person of unknown gender. StatsCan’s figures differ from those compiled by the RCMP, which released a report in May saying 1,017 aboriginal women had been murdered since 1980. It also noted that the “solve rates” for murders involving aboriginal and non-aboriginal women were virtually the same: 88 and 89 per cent respectively. The report did not address male murder victims............... . Seventy-one per cent of those nearly 500 aboriginal homicide victims were men. Despite this, many national organizations stand by the focus on murdered and missing aboriginal women. www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/22/aboriginal_men_murdered_at_higher_rate_than_aboriginal_women.html Here is RCMP report with statistics for motives of crime, perpetrators, location,method etc. etc. Alvin www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdf
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 27, 2015 17:18:05 GMT -5
Should freedom of speech go as far as the University of Westminster scheduling a lecture by someone like Al-Haddad?
Why are extremist clerics given teaching positions in free countries?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 27, 2015 18:35:11 GMT -5
Some statistics...RCMP says 88 and 89 percent solve rates for murders for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal-virtually the same. Between 1980 and 2012, 14 per cent of female murder victims with a known ethnicity were aboriginal, far exceeding their 4 per cent share of the female population, according to Statistics Canada. But 17 per cent of male murder victims were also aboriginal during that time. In total, nearly 2,500 aboriginal people were murdered in the past three decades: 1,750 male, 745 female and one person of unknown gender. StatsCan’s figures differ from those compiled by the RCMP, which released a report in May saying 1,017 aboriginal women had been murdered since 1980. It also noted that the “solve rates” for murders involving aboriginal and non-aboriginal women were virtually the same: 88 and 89 per cent respectively. The report did not address male murder victims............... . Seventy-one per cent of those nearly 500 aboriginal homicide victims were men. Despite this, many national organizations stand by the focus on murdered and missing aboriginal women. www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/22/aboriginal_men_murdered_at_higher_rate_than_aboriginal_women.html Here is RCMP report with statistics for motives of crime, perpetrators, location,method etc. etc. Alvin www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdfAlvin, are you saying the police shouldn't focus on the missing and murdered aboriginal women, and if so, why?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 27, 2015 18:44:13 GMT -5
Should freedom of speech go as far as the University of Westminster scheduling a lecture by someone like Al-Haddad? Why are extremist clerics given teaching positions in free countries? Where do you see that a know extremist cleric had a teaching position? The free speech question is an interesting one. Personally, I think a supremacist, Muslim extremist, homophobe or racist should be able to rent a room, and give a talk or make a speech. There are others I know who disagree. It should be clear in such a case that the university is not sanctioning the event but just providing a facility. Controversial talks should be monitored by police or university monitors, just to ensure the participants are not planning or aiding in illegal acts, or engaging in illegal speech acts.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 27, 2015 19:13:37 GMT -5
Some statistics...RCMP says 88 and 89 percent solve rates for murders for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal-virtually the same. Between 1980 and 2012, 14 per cent of female murder victims with a known ethnicity were aboriginal, far exceeding their 4 per cent share of the female population, according to Statistics Canada. But 17 per cent of male murder victims were also aboriginal during that time. In total, nearly 2,500 aboriginal people were murdered in the past three decades: 1,750 male, 745 female and one person of unknown gender. StatsCan’s figures differ from those compiled by the RCMP, which released a report in May saying 1,017 aboriginal women had been murdered since 1980. It also noted that the “solve rates” for murders involving aboriginal and non-aboriginal women were virtually the same: 88 and 89 per cent respectively. The report did not address male murder victims............... . Seventy-one per cent of those nearly 500 aboriginal homicide victims were men. Despite this, many national organizations stand by the focus on murdered and missing aboriginal women. www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/22/aboriginal_men_murdered_at_higher_rate_than_aboriginal_women.html Here is RCMP report with statistics for motives of crime, perpetrators, location,method etc. etc. Alvin www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdfAlvin, are you saying the police shouldn't focus on the missing and murdered aboriginal women, and if so, why? No. ?? Focus on missing and murdered women AND men. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 27, 2015 21:08:22 GMT -5
Should freedom of speech go as far as the University of Westminster scheduling a lecture by someone like Al-Haddad? Why are extremist clerics given teaching positions in free countries? Where do you see that a know extremist cleric had a teaching position? The free speech question is an interesting one. Personally, I think a supremacist, Muslim extremist, homophobe or racist should be able to rent a room, and give a talk or make a speech. There are others I know who disagree. It should be clear in such a case that the university is not sanctioning the event but just providing a facility. Controversial talks should be monitored by police or university monitors, just to ensure the participants are not planning or aiding in illegal acts, or engaging in illegal speech acts. Shouldn't a university be a place where intelligent and enlightened discussion takes place? Al-Haddad is leading his followers down a dark hole, and I question why the university has anything to do with such a nut-job. Female genital mutilation is forbidden in the UK, so why is this Islamic cleric allowed to promote it on campuses? www.standard.co.uk/news/london/anger-as-preacher-who-supports-fgm-speaks-at-soas-campus-debate-9137997.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 1:29:35 GMT -5
Should freedom of speech go as far as the University of Westminster scheduling a lecture by someone like Al-Haddad?Why are extremist clerics given teaching positions in free countries? Let's get the facts straight:
#1) Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad isn't a "teacher " at University of Westminster.
#2) It was NOT the University of Westminster who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker .
It was the university’s Islamic society who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Muhammad? It would be like a university’s Christian society scheduling Pat Robertson as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Jesus? The University attended by Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State extremist known as “Jihadi John”, has suspended any student union event deemed “sensitive” a day after his identity was revealed.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 28, 2015 4:33:57 GMT -5
Should freedom of speech go as far as the University of Westminster scheduling a lecture by someone like Al-Haddad?Why are extremist clerics given teaching positions in free countries? Let's get the facts straight:
#1) Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad isn't a "teacher " at University of Westminster.
#2) It was NOT the University of Westminster who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker .
It was the university’s Islamic society who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Muhammad? It would be like a university’s Christian society scheduling Pat Robertson as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Jesus? The University attended by Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State extremist known as “Jihadi John”, has suspended any student union event deemed “sensitive” a day after his identity was revealed.
I'm inclined to agree with the following comment: This guy preaches hate against Jews and homosexuals. He advocates the killing of Muslims who leave their faith, and claims "it is consensus of all the scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [proper]. It's an honour and virtue for the woman." It seems rather futile fighting ISIL in Syria while these Islamic nut-jobs are recruiting jihadis on university campuses.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 28, 2015 5:40:02 GMT -5
Let's get the facts straight:
#1) Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad isn't a "teacher " at University of Westminster.
#2) It was NOT the University of Westminster who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker .
It was the university’s Islamic society who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Muhammad? It would be like a university’s Christian society scheduling Pat Robertson as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Jesus? The University attended by Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State extremist known as “Jihadi John”, has suspended any student union event deemed “sensitive” a day after his identity was revealed.
I'm inclined to agree with the following comment: This guy preaches hate against Jews and homosexuals. He advocates the killing of Muslims who leave their faith, and claims "it is consensus of all the scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [proper]. It's an honour and virtue for the woman." It seems rather futile fighting ISIL in Syria while these Islamic nut-jobs are recruiting jihadis on university campuses. I can see both sides on this one. I lean toward leaving speech as "free" as possible thinking that, at the level of ideas, open warfare is best. Active recruitment, that is, making contact with ISIL and enabling young people to go, should be illegal. But then that takes it out of the university's hands. I also think we lay too much at the feet of imams and teachers; these kids are making a decision to go and should be held accountable.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 28, 2015 5:52:40 GMT -5
Alvin, are you saying the police shouldn't focus on the missing and murdered aboriginal women, and if so, why? No. ?? Focus on missing and murdered women AND men. Alvin Aboriginal murder invites study though don't you think? I'd like to know the reason for the focus on aboriginal women, not including men. I assume they have a reason, as the article does not say. If a large number of children were being murdered but not at the same rate as adults would you say that we shouldn't focus on children? Perhaps the female victims are thought more vulnerable than the male. While I favour study of the issue, I'm not sure of a full inquiry. They are very costly and might provide little actual benefit... the remedies of past studies have not been implemented so why an inquiry?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 6:10:17 GMT -5
Let's get the facts straight:
#1) Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad isn't a "teacher " at University of Westminster.
#2) It was NOT the University of Westminster who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker .
It was the university’s Islamic society who scheduled Sheikh Haitham al-Haddad as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Muhammad? It would be like a university’s Christian society scheduling Pat Robertson as speaker at an event entitled, Who is Jesus? The University attended by Mohammed Emwazi, the Islamic State extremist known as “Jihadi John”, has suspended any student union event deemed “sensitive” a day after his identity was revealed.
University should be a safe space for all and it should not be given a platform for hate of any kind – all students should be provided with a safe learning environment. I have just told you the university didn't invite him in the first place & have cancelled the event.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 28, 2015 7:21:57 GMT -5
University should be a safe space for all and it should not be given a platform for hate of any kind – all students should be provided with a safe learning environment. I have just told you the university didn't invite him in the first place & have cancelled the event.
Certainly in our area with two local universities there are a wide range of events using campus facilities which are sponsored by churches, investment agencies, religious groups, partisan lobby groups, various NGOS, and so on. Dozens of events per week, maybe even a hundred or more. It's virtually impossible to monitor and sometimes the university is embarrassed... but that's a consequence of a free and open university environment.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 28, 2015 13:22:19 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree with the following comment: This guy preaches hate against Jews and homosexuals. He advocates the killing of Muslims who leave their faith, and claims "it is consensus of all the scholars that female circumcision is sunnah [proper]. It's an honour and virtue for the woman." It seems rather futile fighting ISIL in Syria while these Islamic nut-jobs are recruiting jihadis on university campuses. I can see both sides on this one. I lean toward leaving speech as "free" as possible thinking that, at the level of ideas, open warfare is best. Active recruitment, that is, making contact with ISIL and enabling young people to go, should be illegal. But then that takes it out of the university's hands. I also think we lay too much at the feet of imams and teachers; these kids are making a decision to go and should be held accountable. If it was a Nazi party giving lectures at the university, teaching their solution for "the Jewish problem", would it be allowed? If it was Jim Jones teaching the young people to join a suicide pact in Guyana, would it be allowed? I think more should be expected of Imams. They brainwash young people and get them into a frenzy of hatred and fanaticism so they're ready to sacrifice their lives for Allah. I think we should have enough respect for the hard-won Universal Declaration of Human Rights to stop these Islamic nut-jobs from preaching against it. If a daughter of yours was radicalised at college, genitally mutilated, and went to Syria would you still feel the same way? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31633002
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 28, 2015 13:56:25 GMT -5
If an entire religion is offended by a thing, then I believe it's only respectful to take account of whatever that "thing" is. The entire free world is offended by a "thing". Here's what that "thing" is: attacks on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Is there any Islamic preacher on the planet who supports it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 15:47:56 GMT -5
If it was a Nazi party giving lectures at the university, teaching their solution for "the Jewish problem", would it be allowed? If it was Jim Jones teaching the young people to join a suicide pact in Guyana, would it be allowed? I think more should be expected of Imams. They brainwash young people and get them into a frenzy of hatred and fanaticism so they're ready to sacrifice their lives for Allah. I think we should have enough respect for the hard-won Universal Declaration of Human Rights to stop these Islamic nut-jobs from preaching against it. If a daughter of yours was radicalised at college, genitally mutilated, and went to Syria would you still feel the same way? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31633002 Of course I wouldn't want my daughter genitally mutilated, or to go off to Syria to fight with ISIS!
Your post shows you are using a logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion"
Logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion" The arousal of emotion is known to smother rationality, hence if it is introduced into an argument, then it is more likely that logical reasoning will be ignored. Many arguments thus deliberately seek to evoke emotions of the listeners.
It seems that often the reason the arguments such as these are pulled out of the bag when the person feels that they are loosing the argument.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 28, 2015 17:53:55 GMT -5
OK, let's stick with rational debate.
Should the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be modified to make it work with religions that preach the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against other religions?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 28, 2015 18:17:49 GMT -5
I can see both sides on this one. I lean toward leaving speech as "free" as possible thinking that, at the level of ideas, open warfare is best. Active recruitment, that is, making contact with ISIL and enabling young people to go, should be illegal. But then that takes it out of the university's hands. I also think we lay too much at the feet of imams and teachers; these kids are making a decision to go and should be held accountable. If it was a Nazi party giving lectures at the university, teaching their solution for "the Jewish problem", would it be allowed? If it was Jim Jones teaching the young people to join a suicide pact in Guyana, would it be allowed? I think more should be expected of Imams. They brainwash young people and get them into a frenzy of hatred and fanaticism so they're ready to sacrifice their lives for Allah. I think we should have enough respect for the hard-won Universal Declaration of Human Rights to stop these Islamic nut-jobs from preaching against it. If a daughter of yours was radicalised at college, genitally mutilated, and went to Syria would you still feel the same way? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31633002White supremacists and Nazi sympathizers do, in fact, have free speech rights. I believe in the US those protections are very strong. For example, the police have protected white supremacists marching with placards, et cetera. Here in Canada you can't advocate genocide or incite hatred. That's about it. There are some famous trials of record against Zundel and separately, Keegstra, who were Holocaust deniers and found guilty, if I remember. Keegstra taught his theories in the classroom. Personally, I favour wide open speech laws, short of aiding and abetting, or inciting to criminal acts. That is, I favour protecting an Imam who advocates beheading decadent Westerners, but not one who treasonously connects Canadian young people with agents for ISIS. But that's just me. With respect to your example, I'd rather an extremist Muslim work in the open than do his work surreptitiously.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 18:41:36 GMT -5
OK, let's stick with rational debate.Should the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be modified to make it work with religions that preach the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against other religions? That is better. Now you are not using an emotional argument.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 28, 2015 22:40:08 GMT -5
OK, let's stick with rational debate. Should the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be modified to make it work with religions that preach the subjugation of women, female genital mutilation, the death sentence for homosexuals and those who leave the religion, and war against other religions? No.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 5:19:12 GMT -5
White supremacists and Nazi sympathizers do, in fact, have free speech rights. I believe in the US those protections are very strong. For example, the police have protected white supremacists marching with placards, et cetera. Here in Canada you can't advocate genocide or incite hatred. That's about it. There are some famous trials of record against Zundel and separately, Keegstra, who were Holocaust deniers and found guilty, if I remember. Keegstra taught his theories in the classroom. Personally, I favour wide open speech laws, short of aiding and abetting, or inciting to criminal acts. That is, I favour protecting an Imam who advocates beheading decadent Westerners, but not one who treasonously connects Canadian young people with agents for ISIS. But that's just me. With respect to your example, I'd rather an extremist Muslim work in the open than do his work surreptitiously. Some things the Imams are saying could be considered advocating genocide (killing Jews in particular) and inciting hatred (would calling Jews and Christians apes and swine count? What about homophobia - is that inciting hatred?) That said, I do appreciate the value of free speech. In theory the best ideas will win. However if you defend the right of Imams to preach hatred against Jews and Christians and secular society, then it's only fair to defend the rights of Charlie Hebdo and those who publish their cartoons. There is merit in your argument that the nut-jobs are better preaching openly rather than surreptitiously. However I'm not sure that it's a good idea to allow impressionable young people to be brainwashed into joining ISIL, and then asking other young people to go to the Middle East and kill them. I'm not convinced that France has got it wrong:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 1, 2015 7:12:09 GMT -5
White supremacists and Nazi sympathizers do, in fact, have free speech rights. I believe in the US those protections are very strong. For example, the police have protected white supremacists marching with placards, et cetera. Here in Canada you can't advocate genocide or incite hatred. That's about it. There are some famous trials of record against Zundel and separately, Keegstra, who were Holocaust deniers and found guilty, if I remember. Keegstra taught his theories in the classroom. Personally, I favour wide open speech laws, short of aiding and abetting, or inciting to criminal acts. That is, I favour protecting an Imam who advocates beheading decadent Westerners, but not one who treasonously connects Canadian young people with agents for ISIS. But that's just me. With respect to your example, I'd rather an extremist Muslim work in the open than do his work surreptitiously. Some things the Imams are saying could be considered advocating genocide (killing Jews in particular) and inciting hatred (would calling Jews and Christians apes and swine count? What about homophobia - is that inciting hatred?) That said, I do appreciate the value of free speech. In theory the best ideas will win. However if you defend the right of Imams to preach hatred against Jews and Christians and secular society, then it's only fair to defend the rights of Charlie Hebdo and those who publish their cartoons. There is merit in your argument that the nut-jobs are better preaching openly rather than surreptitiously. However I'm not sure that it's a good idea to allow impressionable young people to be brainwashed into joining ISIL, and then asking other young people to go to the Middle East and kill them. I'm not convinced that France has got it wrong: I absolutely defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to print their cartoons. However, I also defend the right of individual publications to have content standard that exclude offensive materials ... excluding both cartoons and religious (pro-Muslim) advertising. France's stand seems contradictory to me, and they've been criticized for their stance. We have to factor into the ISIS situation that young people are sometimes looking for a "cause". There are reports here of moderate Imams here trying to de-radicalise some of their younger members, without success at times. Rebels are not unique to Islam.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 15:23:12 GMT -5
We have to factor into the ISIS situation that young people are sometimes looking for a "cause". There are reports here of moderate Imams here trying to de-radicalise some of their younger members, without success at times. Rebels are not unique to Islam. I would applaud moderate Imams but they are really hard to find. They can't do much to deradicalise the young people without attempting to deradicalise their fellow Imams. Here's a moderate Imam: Yeah....I know. This is from an evangelical website.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 1, 2015 15:29:54 GMT -5
I absolutely defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to print their cartoons. However, I also defend the right of individual publications to have content standard that exclude offensive materials ... excluding both cartoons and religious (pro-Muslim) advertising. France's stand seems contradictory to me, and they've been criticized for their stance. We have to factor into the ISIS situation that young people are sometimes looking for a "cause". There are reports here of moderate Imams here trying to de-radicalise some of their younger members, without success at times. Rebels are not unique to Islam. We can continue to import Imams from basket case countries to teach our young people, and then kill the young folks after they become jihadis. However I do wonder if it would be better to simply stop the hate preachers coming into free countries to spew their venom.
|
|