muslims PART 2

[Spock]

Please, Colorado has enough problems already

[The Gaffer]

Well, banning headscarves was daft in my view and just makes an already disadvantaged minorty feel even more alienated. That would be radical secularism.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It is daft.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This debate would benefit from some facts about populations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm

France has about 8% muslim population, largely drawn from former colonies (Algeria and Tunisia), i.e. NOT the majority. Where do such beliefs come from? Is it because we are ready to believe them?

To me the French experience with the headscarves thing shows that radical secularism is just daft and counter-productive.

The problems are more about poverty, ghettoes and colonialism than radical islam. Deal with the former and you don't have the latter.

Originally Posted by BBC ARTICLE

The exact number of Muslims is difficult to establish however, as census figures are often questioned and many countries choose not to compile such information anyway.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, banning headscarves was daft in my view and just makes an already disadvantaged minorty feel even more alienated. That would be radical secularism.

Agreed. It was idiotic. And unjust.

Alas...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This debate would benefit from some facts about populations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4385768.stm

France has about 8% muslim population, largely drawn from former colonies (Algeria and Tunisia), i.e. NOT the majority.

Ah, thanks for the stats . I never thought they were the majority now, but Hector rightly pointed out that they're having many more children than the native French are.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Where do such beliefs come from? Is it because we are ready to believe them?

To me the French experience with the headscarves thing shows that radical secularism is just daft and counter-productive.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The problems are more about poverty, ghettoes and colonialism than radical islam. Deal with the former and you don't have the latter.

I disagree quite strongly. It is worth noting that many of the Islamic terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were educated in the US. Radical Islam is growing in Europe, the US, India and Indonesia. The fact that it's growing worldwide very rapidly, even in countries that are prosperous compared to most others, indicates that poverty isn't one of the central problems. I agree that poverty can be used as a tool for the spread of radicalism, but I don't think the facts support the idea (which, by the way, is produced by a secular and Western perspective) that economics are the central issue. I think they're more of a peripheral issue, personally.

Also, poverty is relative. People in many impoverished places don't view themselves as impoverished. For instance, I attended a globalization debate at a college conference last year, and in it a young lady argued that in Pakistan, people live in slave-like conditions. She pointed out how absurdly low their wages were, but there happened to a Pakistani in our conference. He said, "You're right about the size of the wage, but we live very well on that."

"Very well," for them is doubtless not the same as it would be for us. Probably a very large number of Pakistanis would be below the US poverty line, but as far as they're concerned, they're doing all right. So we need to keep a sense of perspective when looking at this element of the situation.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Ah, thanks for the stats . I never thought they were the majority now, but Hector rightly pointed out that they're having many more children than the native French are.

So, 8% of the population are having more children than 92%? If so, you've gotta hand it to those libidinous arabiacs.

I think we've got a nice microcosm right there of how these erroneous beliefs get propagated.

The "out-breeding" paranoia has been with us since the year dot. I don't give it any credence whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I disagree quite strongly. It is worth noting that many of the Islamic terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were educated in the US. Radical Islam is growing in Europe, the US, India and Indonesia. The fact that it's growing worldwide very rapidly, even in countries that are prosperous compared to most others, indicates that poverty isn't one of the central problems. I agree that poverty can be used as a tool for the spread of radicalism, but I don't think the facts support the idea (which, by the way, is produced by a secular and Western perspective) that economics are the central issue. I think they're more of a peripheral issue, personally.

Also, poverty is relative. People in many impoverished places don't view themselves as impoverished. For instance, I attended a globalization debate at a college conference last year, and in it a young lady argued that in Pakistan, people live in slave-like conditions. She pointed out how absurdly low their wages were, but there happened to a Pakistani in our conference. He said, "You're right about the size of the wage, but we live very well on that."

"Very well," for them is doubtless not the same as it would be for us. Probably a very large number of Pakistanis would be below the US poverty line, but as far as they're concerned, they're doing all right. So we need to keep a sense of perspective when looking at this element of the situation.

I thought we were talking about France, not 9/11. But you're right: poverty IS relative. And unemployment is the worst aspect of it. Why don't you look up the unemployment rate amongst young muslims in France? Many of these people are second generation immigrants, and yet they can't get jobs and suffer significant discrimination. You see the same thing here in the UK: ghettos creating ideal cannon fodder for the nutters.

OK, there are two sides to every story, and both "sides" need to think more about integration and what unites us, and less about what divides us. But there's no denying that muslims in France, and most other European countries, are relatively disadvantaged compared with non-muslims. And it's getting worse.

I agree that there is much more to it than poverty, especially WRT 9/11 and al-Quaeda. But you are in danger here of committing the cardinal sin of treating all as being alike. The bin Laden brand of nutterdom is highly opportunist and will attempt to attach itself to whatever local causes are available.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by BBC ARTICLE

The exact number of Muslims is difficult to establish however, as census figures are often questioned and many countries choose not to compile such information anyway.

Well here again...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

So, 8% of the population are having more children than 92%? If so, you've gotta hand it to those libinous arabiacs.

I think we've got a nice microcosm right there of how these erroneous beliefs get propagated.

Lol! No, the average Muslim family is having more children than the average family of a native European .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The "out-breeding" paranoia has been with us since the year dot. I don't give it any credence whatsoever.

Well, I think that's a mistake. Sharia is the only way of life that many of these people know, and also radicalism is spreading rapidly among immigrants. Their children will grow up with the same attitudes and beliefs. These are valid concerns.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I thought we were talking about France, not 9/11. But you're right: poverty IS relative. And unemployment is the worst aspect of it. Why don't you look up the unemployment rate amongst young muslims in France? Many of these people are second generation immigrants, and yet they can't get jobs and suffer significant discrimination. You see the same thing here in the UK: ghettos creating ideal cannon fodder for the nutters.

Yes, I believe you're absolutely right about this.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

OK, there are two sides to every story, and both "sides" need to think more about integration and what unites us, and less about what divides us. But there's no denying that muslims in France, and most other European countries, are relatively disadvantaged compared with non-muslims. And it's getting worse.

Agreed still.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree that there is much more to it than poverty, especially WRT 9/11 and al-Quaeda. But you are in danger here of committing the cardinal sin of treating all as being alike. The bin Laden brand of nutterdom is highly opportunist and will attempt to attach itself to whatever local causes are available.

I mostly agree, here. I'm not sure in what sense you think I may be treating all Muslims as being alike, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.

One way in which I think most of the Muslim immigrants are alike is that they generally come from highly conservative and religious countries and lifestyles into morally loose Western countries, and that sets barriers for them right away. This is one of the reasons why they often live by themselves in ghettos without trying to merge with secular culture.

Algeria and Tunisia are very conservative Muslim countries, and this creates problems for efforts at integration. French ill treatment of these immigrants is a significant problem for them in particular.

I agree that Bin Laden is opportunistic and seizes upon local causes, using them to his own ends. Unfortunately, he has a broad selection to choose from.

[Earniel]

I misinterpreted. never mind.

[hectorberlioz]

I'm not wholly convinced that the men are so moral themselves...I mean, yeah the WOMEN can't do anything, but the men can have affairs with foreign women if they choose to...

In Arthur Rubinstein's autobiography, there was a Muslim prince or something staying in the same hotel as him. One night he heard a scream of a woman, he looked out of his door, and she was dashing out of the Prince's room ...she was freaked out because of...a cultural practice I cannot here name

[The Gaffer]

Hector, you sure it wasn't a Republican senator's room? Oh wait, you said woman, not boy...

Lief, I was referring to generalising about "radical Islam" right across the world. You said:

Radical Islam is growing in Europe, the US, India and Indonesia. The fact that it's growing worldwide very rapidly, even in countries that are prosperous compared to most others, indicates that poverty isn't one of the central problems.

India and Indonesia are close in the alphabet, but that's about it. Even if you look at a country like Syria, you find an enormously complex political situation, e.g. with a secular government pretending to support radicals on the one hand whilst torturing them on behalf of the CIA with the other. The closer you look at these places the less they resemble each other.

The one thing they do have in common is Palestine: Muslims evicted to make room for Jews. Now, I detest anti-Semitism just as much as the next man, but if you can make a lasting settlement there you've knocked out one of the main planks of the radical islamists platform.

Well, not quite true now, of course, now we've got Iraq. Way to pour petrol on the fire, Dubya.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The "out-breeding" paranoia has been with us since the year dot. I don't give it any credence whatsoever.

For more on this, read Swift's very amusing "A Modest Proposal".

[The Gaffer]

Nice one GW.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm curious, (it's a mere technicality, but I'm curious still ) on what basis do you think would the Sharia be denied? On the principle of women rights or on the principle of separation of government and church (assuming you have that principle, I'm not familiar with the Canadian law)?

It was already denied last year, because then there would be two sets of laws in the country - Sharia for some Candians, the current Canadian system for other Canadians. This situation is not permitted in the Constitution.



About the whole outbreeding thing... let's take France. As the Gaffer pointed out, 8% of the French population is Muslim, and 92% are religions other than Muslim. There are roughly 61 million people in France.

That's 4'880'000 Muslims. Let's say, for the sake of argument that 20% of the Muslim population are married. That's 488 000 couples. Let's say, that every single couple has three children, just for the sake of speculation here. That's 1'464'000 Muslim children.

Meanwhile, what is the rest of France up to? Let's say 20% of them are married too. That's 28'060'000 couples. But, let's say only half the couples have children; 1 child per couple. That's 14'030'000 children. (Effectively, half a child per couple.)

So... if we continued this trend that I am making up off the cuff, I wonder how long it would take for the Muslim population to make up half the country?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

For more on this, read Swift's very amusing "A Modest Proposal".

I loved that . It was absolutely brilliant. A marvelous, marvelous piece of writing.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

India and Indonesia are close in the alphabet, but that's about it. Even if you look at a country like Syria, you find an enormously complex political situation, e.g. with a secular government pretending to support radicals on the one hand whilst torturing them on behalf of the CIA with the other. The closer you look at these places the less they resemble each other.

I'm not saying that they all do. I was saying that radicalism is growing everywhere, as it is. For many different reasons, as you correctly point out. And it is also growing in very prosperous places, and among highly educated people as well as the uneducated.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The one thing they do have in common is Palestine: Muslims evicted to make room for Jews. Now, I detest anti-Semitism just as much as the next man, but if you can make a lasting settlement there you've knocked out one of the main planks of the radical islamists platform.

I definitely agree that this is a key issue they have in common. There are many others, though, that you haven't mentioned.

Here are three major sources for radicalism that you haven't mentioned:

1) Mobs and soldiers in India massacred around one million Muslims who were traveling to Pakistan, at the time of Pakistan's birth. So Pakistan experienced its very own holocaust, and this was a key original reasons for the intense spread of radicalism in that country. Pakistan's ISI also funded those militant groups so that they would fight against India in Kashmir.

2) In the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Saddam Hussein initiated his attack on Iran and committed horrendous atrocities against them and the Kurds. We gave him US dollars, funding his campaign. Some Muslims accuse us of giving even more than money. I talked with one young Arab woman who told me that her parents had met Palestinians from Gaza Strip in the conflict who were involved because the US had hired them to kill as many Muslims on both sides as possible. I don't know if she's right or not, but anyway . . . Our funding Saddam in that war certainly is an understandable complaint many Muslims make.

3) Before the USSR collapsed, it invaded Afghanistan and it went all-out. It didn't care how many casualties it inflicted on the civilian population. It pulverized cities and towns and villages without mercy, slaughtering over a million Afghans in an utterly ruthless bombardment. People felt the utter injustice and cruelty of this invasion, and Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were born as Osama Bin Laden went to Afghanistan to fight the infidel invaders. He fought hand to hand against the Soviets, risking his life in the front lines. In the Battle of Jaji, for instance, he and fifty men held out on a hill for a week when surrounded by three hundred Soviet soldiers who were keeping up a constant artillery bombardment. I only mention this to point out that he really is a religious fanatic who will lay down his life and fortune for what he believes in, and is not (as some here have made the mistake of thinking) out for money. This utterly barbaric war engaged in by one of the two mightiest superpowers of the time, and in which they were defeated by the courage of guerilla fighting jihadis (and a significant bunch of US cash dollars), provided great strength to the radical Islamic cause. We can't forget the Russia's fight against militants in Chechnya either.

These conflicts had a big influence in increasing the Muslim view that they were being oppressed and attacked by infidels, and have been big factors in the spread of radicalism.

Other sources of radicalism:

4) You are quite right that Israel's actions against the Palestinians, denying them the right to return to their land, and expelling many of them and destroying hundreds of villages so that they could not return, and creating the whole economic nightmare that they endure right now, is another major factor. Many Muslims feel that Israel is committing massacres against the Palestinians too, without regard for who's a militant and who isn't. I don't know if that is true- maybe it is and maybe not. But the US has supported Israel in just about anything it wants to do because of having a strong Christian fundamentalist lobby on the Republican side of politics and a strong Jewish lobby among the Democrats. So we deserve our fair share of the blame, here.

5) The US supported highly unpopular and oppressive regimes to counter the Soviet menace during the Cold War. While this was necessary at the time, from our perspective, it was an act of enmity from the Muslim populations' perspective. It also ran strongly counter to our claim that we wanted freedom and democracy for others, showing us to be hypocritical, only desiring democracies that were friends to us.

6) Muhammad and his early followers carved a MASSIVE empire in the world through bloodshed in the 7th century AD and much further in the subsequent centuries. Many Muslims look back on this history today and remember the glories of the past, when they were at the top of the world. They want a return to that time of glory.

7) The Qur'an itself, and the Hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) urge violence against unbelievers and expansion through conquest. The Qur'an also demands defensive war against oppressors, when Muslims are under attack. Thus the more we attack, the more enemies we get.

8) The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, perceived as attacks on the Muslim world.

9) From the perspective of Muslim culture, the West is highly immoral and decadent. You know how even in Indonesia, there were major protests when Playboy tried to publish itself there, even though they greatly toned down the version they released of their magazine. Madonna, pop culture, Hollywood, secularism, massive freedoms, strong sexuality, greed, etc. Many Muslims view our culture as highly immoral, decadent and cruel, as I do.

10) Poverty in the Middle East and Europe leads to frustration and anger, and intolerance and racism toward Muslims, Arabs and Africans in Western countries.

11) The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Muhammad said in the Qur'an that there must never be two religions in that country. I almost hesitate to make this my point 11 when it seems to me that it should almost more logically be one of the more minor points. However, I'm becoming convinced otherwise by what I read. In one of the books about Islamic extremism that I read, this point was given a very, very big emphasis. The author was a Muslim, and he hates Al'Qaeda and believes that Al'Qaeda is doing evil, which he argues for with citations from the Qur'an. However, he argues that jihad against the US in Saudi Arabia is actually justified by the sayings of Muhammad. His book was wildly popular among Muslims, if I'm not mixing his book up with another one I read. I might also mention that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said, "we fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the Land of the Two Holy Places, and after there the West." The Land of the Two Holy Places is Saudi Arabia, which indicates how critically important that country's religious chastity is to Muslims.


Some of these issues can be blamed on the US, some on Israel, some on Europe and others on other countries. This is a number of factors that contribute to a sense of oppression and a desire to go back to the days of glory in the past, and that encourage violence as a means of retaliating against oppressors. Israel is one important influence, as you mention. But I read the author of a book called "Holy War Inc." say that Osama Bin Laden's willingness to kill our civilians in the World Trade Center stems from his belief that we killed hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians in the Iran-Iraq war and other places across the Middle East. So to him, killing our civilians is a just retaliation for our slaughters of his people, which is part of why he hates us.

The view that Islam is under attack has revived the radical spirit of the past and caused people to look to their early doctrines, which espouse violence and aggression against infidels.

There's a prophecy from the Hadith that I read, in which Muhammad predicted that a day would come when most Muslims would not follow the true faith, and that apostates would hold power in the mosques and leadership positions in the Muslim world. He said that the people would desire the true Islam, but their leaders would not give it.

There also is a Shi'ite prophecy of a final Imam, a man true to Allah who was lost for centuries but would return in a day of ferocious persecution of the Muslim people. He would lead the Muslim people to a day of conquest and triumph, in which Islam would conquer the entire world.

Perhaps a month ago, Iran celebrated a festival in honor of the Hidden Imam, and Ahmadinejad prayed publicly for the Imam to come and reveal himself. The celebration of the Hidden Imam was held all over Iran, and was viewed with a rather pleasant and naive view by the BBC News, which showed pictures of the celebration and wrote a kind of cheerful article about it. I doubt very highly that they understood what the Imam is about.

My point about these prophecies is just that a significant number of Muslims look at them and apply them to our day and age.

I doubt that I've listed all the grievances many Muslims hold against us. Oh yes, I forgot to mention the Crusades and George Bush's referring to our invasion of Iraq as a Crusade. His and the Pope's comments are being terribly misconstrued with very negative consequences for our relations with the Muslim world.

The list of factors, historical and current, that contribute to this mess goes on and on. Whenever someone or some group in the West makes a false move, it gets plastered all over the media which spreads all over the world, and stirs anger against us. The fact that the pope's comments were misinterpreted by so many reveals just how deeply mistrust of the West has spread throughout the Muslim world. Whereas I immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was being misinterpreted, vast numbers of Muslims instantly jumped to the conclusion that he was attacking them, because they've already suffered so many real attacks.

And I think our tactics in fighting this war on terror aren't working. But I can't think of anything else that would work better, and I think most of the liberals' ideas I've heard so far would only make things much worse. And with Iraq specifically, I continue to place my hope in the Iraqi police force. If we do pull off a victory in Iraq, that will substantially weaken the jihadis' ability to claim that God is on their side, for according to Muslim religious teachings, he will give victory to those he favors.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It was already denied last year, because then there would be two sets of laws in the country - Sharia for some Candians, the current Canadian system for other Canadians. This situation is not permitted in the Constitution.

I'm afraid that I have to think this is being rather naive. Democracy can be manipulated to one's advantage when one has a strong enough lobby. Take President McKinley of the United States, for an example of how religious views can be actually used as primary justification for war in Western nations.

Originally Posted by President McKinley

"I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me: That we could not give them [the Philippines] back to Spain-that would be cowardly and dishonorable; that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable; that we could not leave them to themselves-they were unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the ..War Department map-maker, and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large wall map), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President!"

General James Rusling, "Interview with President William McKinley," The Christian Advocate 22 January 1903, 17.
http://www.historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5575/

Religious wars can happen, even in civilized Western countries! Looking at the 20th and 19th centuries, you can see a lot of them.

People also can twist the law to make it mean what they want it to mean, a lot of the time. And when they can't change it, sometimes they'll just abolish it or break it.

Let's take the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution as an example.

Originally Posted by 14th Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We had a Supreme Court full of people who were fully in favor of slavery. So they took the law that says, in sentence 2, that "no State" shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the US, and they said, "well, no state can do it, but people within the state can do it." So they made racist laws legal within the state.

But what's the state made up of? People. They were obviously interpreting the 14th Amendment in an incredibly narrow way, simply to suit their own interests and desires. They made it fit with their ideology.

People are crafty. Laws can be reinterpreted. When they can't be reinterpreted, they can be repealed or changed. When they can't be repealed or changed, they can be broken. Canada right now has a non-Islamic majority. If that population demographic changes around for them or for other countries, I think you'll see a profound change in their government policies and in many of the laws being established.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

About the whole outbreeding thing... let's take France. As the Gaffer pointed out, 8% of the French population is Muslim, and 92% are religions other than Muslim. There are roughly 61 million people in France.

That's 4'880'000 Muslims. Let's say, for the sake of argument that 20% of the Muslim population are married. That's 488 000 couples. Let's say, that every single couple has three children, just for the sake of speculation here. That's 1'464'000 Muslim children.

Meanwhile, what is the rest of France up to? Let's say 20% of them are married too. That's 28'060'000 couples. But, let's say only half the couples have children; 1 child per couple. That's 14'030'000 children. (Effectively, half a child per couple.)

So... if we continued this trend that I am making up off the cuff, I wonder how long it would take for the Muslim population to make up half the country?

Originally Posted by CBS News

The concerns related to the growth of Muslim populations differ from country to country. In France, a crucial factor is the concentration of Muslim populations in urban areas, where predictions are that as much as one-third of the next generation will be Muslim and some have warned of the formation of "ethnic ghettoes." An important question for many in the American political scene is the relative size and rate of growth in Muslim and Jewish populations. The two groups make competing claims, and while it is likely that they are quite close in population, the Muslim community may now be slightly larger.

Sources for the article I'm citing are: Gudel, Joseph P. from Christian Research Journal,
U.S. State Department, BBC News
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/sh...nce/info2.html

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm afraid that I have to think this is being rather naive. Democracy can be manipulated to one's advantage when one has a strong enough lobby. Take President McKinley of the United States, for an example of how religious views can be actually used as primary justification for war in Western nations.

I'm afraid you don't understand the Canadian Constitution my friend.

You can't just lobby the government and then have the Constitution changed. There is a complex legal procedure that must be undertaken by the government. The majority of Parliment must also vote on any changes, as well as the Senate.

We really are in no danger of adopting Sharia law. This is not in the slightest bit naive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Religious wars can happen, even in civilized Western countries! Looking at the 20th and 19th centuries, you can see a lot of them.

To what religious wars are you referring?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People also can twist the law to make it mean what they want it to mean, a lot of the time. And when they can't change it, sometimes they'll just abolish it or break it.

You can't just magically abolish a law. People do break laws though.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Let's take the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution as an example.

We had a Supreme Court full of people who were fully in favor of slavery. So they took the law that says, in sentence 2, that "no State" shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the US, and they said, "well, no state can do it, but people within the state can do it." So they made racist laws legal within the state.

But what's the state made up of? People. They were obviously interpreting the 14th Amendment in an incredibly narrow way, simply to suit their own interests and desires. They made it fit with their ideology.

If this happened in Canada right now, the law would be struck down because it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It doesn't matter how people would have interpreted it, you just cannot have a law that is descriminatory.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

People are crafty. Laws can be reinterpreted. When they can't be reinterpreted, they can be repealed or changed. When they can't be repealed or changed, they can be broken. Canada right now has a non-Islamic majority. If that population demographic changes around for them or for other countries, I think you'll see a profound change in their government policies and in many of the laws being established.

You're right about people being crafty and reinterpreting laws, and that is exactly why we have the Charter. A growing Muslim population in Canada is not going to induce any changes that violate the Charter or the Constitution.

I'm not ignoring any threats, this is simply how the government works.

Laws. Know them, love them, use them.

[Spock]

Then too there's the ever popular phrase, adapted for the post 9-11 period:

"kill them all and let Allah sort them out"


just pointing out the extremes in thought, feeling, word and deed

[The Gaffer]

You may be surprised to hear it, but I can understand where these extremes come from. Much in the same way that I can understand where they come from on the other side.

Just as I would favour eliminating islamic extremism by addressing with genuine grievances, I would say that Western extremism can only be eliminated by addressing the perceived threats posed by such nutters.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the two are locked in a positive feedback loop. Who has the vision and leadership to break it?

[Spock]

While I disagree with a couple of those points, overall we actually agree on the main.