Comments on: Muslims run unchecked in Canada?

By: links of london

links of london — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 01:13:32 +0000

Hell, even if you want to call them â??cultural practicesâ?? theyâ??re still WRONG, IMMORAL and ILLEGAL. Not all cultures are equal and such beliefs are poisoning the left.

By: nike free run

nike free run — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:10:54 +0000

Hell, even if you want to call them “cultural practices” they’re still WRONG, IMMORAL and ILLEGAL. Not all cultures are equal and such beliefs are poisoning the left.

By: student aid

student aid — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:40:59 +0000

I have to take issue with this statement in that “deploring” an entire religion is pretty extreme, imo. Islam is actually very close to Christianity in terms of it’s teachings – all except that they think Mohammed was the latest prophet, who came after Jesus. They still accord Jesus an important place in their religion as one of God’s rare prophets on earth. And Christians & Jews are both called “people of the book” in Islam & are to be accorded respect.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:37:52 +0000

I deplore Christianity and every other religion that shuts minds and demands obedience (the very core of Islam is the idea of submission). If it’s just “culture” then it’s wrong. Islamic leaders don’t denounce genital mutilation, they don’t denounce honour killings. These aren’t uneducated Muslims, they’re Europeans and Canadians.

Putting faith above reason almost always leads to negative consequences. End the cultural relativistic bullshit and call a spade a spade.

Hell, even if you want to call them “cultural practices” they’re still WRONG, IMMORAL and ILLEGAL. Not all cultures are equal and such beliefs are poisoning the left.

By: Nick D.

Nick D. — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:36:49 +0000

I would choose to go with the pat-down given the option. However, I don’t know how long they will let us get away with that.

And the US will be even worse. They STILL make you take off your shoes. Stupid security theatre.

By: CanNurse

CanNurse — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 05:14:33 +0000

Great post, Ian! One of the most sensible I’ve seen on this issue. A slightly different slant has also come to my attention, and that’s Baird/Harper’s cutting of Airline security inspectors positions as well – which of course wasn’t mentioned in the Con brouhaha! The Cons gearing up to ban Niqab in Canada no doubt. But I think you took it back to the source – what WAS this dude doing in the first place?! Obviously has some problems – & nobody else in print, except you seemed to catch that!
Just one more quick comment about part of your last statement – “I deplore Islam and its brutal subjugation of women” …. I have to take issue with this statement in that “deploring” an entire religion is pretty extreme, imo. Islam is actually very close to Christianity in terms of it’s teachings – all except that they think Mohammed was the latest prophet, who came after Jesus. They still accord Jesus an important place in their religion as one of God’s rare prophets on earth. And Christians & Jews are both called “people of the book” in Islam & are to be accorded respect. You are perhaps confusing normal Islam of the Koran with extremists who profess to act in the name of Islam, but in fact have no theological basis to do so. And who are as despised by normal everyday Muslims as Christian extremists who blow up abortion clinics are by normal average Christians. It is a very big mistake to confuse the religion & followers of real Islam with the Right wing crazy extremists, or to equate the two.
As to the “brutal subjugation of women” – again, very little of this is actually in the Koran. It is in SOME Hadiths – which are men’s interpretations of the Koran – often from 2 or 3 centuries ago. Muslim who are educated & aware do not practise subjugation of their women. Some CULTURAL practises have been linked, incorrectly, to the religion when in fact they have nothing to do with it. As usual, some men in power have taken the words of the Koran & re-interpreted them to maintain control of women – just as the Pope & Catholic Church have done for centuries.
It’s a huge topic, but I just wanted to comment on the last phrase. Thanks!

By: Ian

Ian — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:42:49 +0000

“- Thanks to that terahertz radiation you like so much, even a niqab won’t protect their modesty from the prying eyes of the CATSA soon enough.”

Actually, as far as I understand it, the rules are so nonsensical (as with most airport security regulations) that you can turn down the THz scan and instead get a pat-down. Don’t quote me though.

By: Nick D.

Nick D. — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:21:15 +0000

Heya Ian,

Obviously, this is being exploited by people who just have a hate on for the “terrist ferr’ners” and pretty much destroying any useful discussion, per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU

That being said, a few thoughts:
- Last few times I flew, they didn’t check my ID until the gate (they just checked that I *had* a ticket). That’s when they check this stuff.
- These women(?) did go through x-ray and metal detectors, so it’s safe to say that they didn’t have any more weapons than anybody else.
- The positive ID is important to ensure that, for example, a blacklisted terrorist isn’t boarding the plane incognito. Or fleeing the country, or whatever.
- Thanks to that terahertz radiation you like so much, even a niqab won’t protect their modesty from the prying eyes of the CATSA soon enough.
- Our IDs currently don’t have an easily checked biometric other than the picture. Therefore, that’s what we use for positive identification (and why the hutterites have run into trouble).
- I’ve heard many discussions back and forth about the niqab and why people are obsessed with seeing the face. I think the thing that causes people trouble (outside of being “strangely foreign”), which isn’t the case with the head scarf, is that a lot of our interpersonal communication is based on the subtle facial cues. When you talk to someone with a niqab, I think you might as well be talking to someone on the phone (disclosure: I haven’t actually ever talked to someone with their face covered). Furthermore, it seems lopsided because they benefit from those cues from you. However, other than for Israeli-style emotional reaction based security, I think this is more of a sociological discussion and not an airport security one.