I did agree with the judges ruling about adhering to school uniform as that girl is residing in a country where uniform is required, plus she was allowed to wear a head veil. I also do agree that in some circumstances the hijab is a symbol of oppression but there is also the other side of the arguement where some muslim women say that it gives them the opposite which is the liberating freedom to walk about without worrying about male attention. Plus people find it hard to understand in this country because it is the social norm for women to be allowed to wear what they want, i think sometimes we are ignorant in the fact that we say the way we live as the right way to live. However, I personally would alllow a child to wear what she wants and then when she is old enough to make her own choice, because thats what you get in this country choice and i dont think its very fair that asian women are living in this country of choice yet in some cases having to stick to very traiditional rules.
\”Arrogance\” and Knowledge, by Brian Leiter. A response.
I make a case for democracy in opinion.
I think wisdom lies in tracing a sensible path to a worthy outcome. Scientific discourse may not always help us do that. If opposition to scientific discourse grows, that may be a warning to look around to see if we\’re missing something. Normally I think we do this, out of respect for other people\’s feelings, but contempt for people on the other side of the culture wars has become so entrenched our response to opposition is to reject such warnings out of hand.
Here are some cautions.
Discourse is not necessarily truth. Living creatures did not necessarily evolve through natural selection, that may be more a kind of discourse than truth. If it offends people, maybe that says it\’s incomplete, maybe dangerously so, and this part of our discourse needs work. By listening more, we might identify what aspect of our discourse is weak. If you say that natural selection is not an essential part of your discourse, is it treated as such, as other than true doctrine, in the biology textbooks offered in schools?
Is our insistance on truth likely to lead to greater happiness? This breaks down into such issues as, which is more important, truth or happiness? If happiness, does truth always lead to more happiness, or is it only the particular truths we\’re defending that will lead to more happiness? If you think truth is more important than happiness, have you checked around to see that everyone agrees?
Has the evolution of culture out of prior beliefs created a structure of interactions and transactions that a too-quick adoption of evolution might collapse? Would it be wiser to plan a more gradual conversion of belief from tradition to scientific discourse to maintain essential legal and social institutions? Do you feel entitled to move ahead at your own rapid clip if others feel you\’re moving faster than is wise for a society like ours? Do you have that right? What gives you that right? Because you use a certain kind of discourse?
There\’s wry humor today in looking back on past controversies in scientific discourse, such as the phlogiston theory and preformationism. While you may feel personally precluded from such error, are you entitled to force others to adopt your form of discourse? I think humility forbids such an insistance. It shows no respect for others who may think as deeply as you, but along other tracks of discourse.
Do you think discourse, eg contemporary statements of evolutionary theory, is the same as truth? If so, on what grounds do you assert that?
Just because you can \”prove\” something doesn\’t mean it is a fruitful path, or that it leads to a worthy outcome.
Doesn\’t every precedent confirm that you can\’t compel people to belief? If your discourse does not persuade people, then I suggest you rewrite your discourse. If you believe that your discourse is too coincident with the truth, aren\’t you embarrassed to be so sure, when so many others in the past were wrong? Are you sure the emperor is wearing clothes?
Discourse and truth–Darwin held that the peahen designed the peacock\’s tail because she had an esthetic sense similar to ours. Others thought this was a faulty piece of discourse, that he was applying categories incorrectly. Each discourse was the application of human concepts to a natural phenomenon. There are hugely important implications to each side, yet I don\’t think one is yet entitled to demand that one or other side be taught in schools. And I think when you pull that thread, a lot of the fabric of discourse of evolutionary theory can be undone. To me that doesn\’t diminish how happy evolutionary theory makes me, but it does make me think twice before insisting that one kind of discourse be made \”official\”.
Here\’s an example of evolutionary discourse that is clearly faulty, that shows how unwise it would be to follow current evolutionary discourse out the window. To anyone who\’s creative it\’s obvious that living creatures are intelligently designed. In the Creationist discourse, the word \”intelligent\” resonated with the idea of an intelligent Creator, and hence was paraded as proof of the existence of God. Evolutionists responded by denying that evolution designs intelligently, and so were driven into a clearly false line of discourse. Clearly false because, if we are evolved, then so is our design sense, it presumably functions to help us make useful distinctions among other evolved creatures, so we are made such as to find evolved creatures intelligently, or well, designed. This is good evolutionary discourse. By contrast the shiboleth that evolution has nothing to do with intelligent design is very bad and vulnerable discourse. If evolutionary discourse can be painted into a corner so easily, shouldn\’t evolutionists be a little modest about the rest of their discourse, and not assume it\’s god-given?
Since my example of the peahen shows that evolutionary theory is more discourse than truth, isn\’t it proper for scientists and non-scientists alike to have a say in what form of discourse is to become dominant? If the scientific discourse is found wanting, isn\’t it up to the scientists to modify their discourse to make it more acceptable? I think this is definitely a voting matter. I believe evolutionary theory would end up stronger if submitted to a democratic process than if confined to the influence of a narrow range of genes, those most conducive to maths and logic-chopping.
\”Banning the veil in school is a progressive measure, but more is needed. In order to fully protect girls the hijab should be banned everywhere and in every Islamic society for girls under 16.\”
This is an amazingly dangerous idea. Having government decide how one group shall raise their children automatically makes ALL citizens subject to the same whims. Given the Government of Canada\’s idiotic behaviour on a host of issues, it would be insane to allow them any power over children and parenting than they already have.
Even taking into account organised religion, belief is individual, and as such does not need qualifying, and belief by definition does not require factual substantiation. Belief, unlike science does not exist for the progression of man, but for the individual, thus scientists always have something to prove, and so are more often than not frustrated, while those with religious beliefs have nothing to strive for but their own piece of mind, and so can afford to be smug. The people who hold the answers are science teachers in religious schools (!). But this begs the question, is comparing science and religion just like comparing music and photography? Both are beautiful and necessary, but very different.
At last someone willing to say that veils and covering garments enforced by religious fundalmentalists are wrong. I fully agree – especially because of the point raised that they are restricted in their movements and ability to have a so called \”normal\” childhood.
What I do not understand is why these women and young girls are the ones that fought against the ban, that they are the ones fighting to keep their veils on, how can anyone fight for their own prosecution?
My final point is that although the writer raises interesting points, banning all over the world would be virtually impossible and might lead to revolt among the women who have been brain washed all their life, what we need is an educated young generation who will fight for their own right.
I was devastated to hear that Canada; a supposedly modern and progressive society, was going to legitimize the cruel, archaic and patriachal system known as Sharia. Sharia is the reason that hundreds of women are stoned to death, in muslim countries, every year. It is the reason that gay men are brutally beheaded and women are left prisoners in their own homes. How Canada, a country that is suppose to stand for equality and justice, can allow this virus to infect it\’s legal system? is simply beyond my comprehension.
At a time when women and other minorities (gays and non-believers) who already live under this form of jurisprudence, are crying in agony for the world to rescue them from the cruelty that it inflicts. Canada seems all too ready to add to this choir of pain and suffering. Call me stupid, but I was lead to believe that Canada was a secular society, I guess I was wrong.
Another question I have is \”Where in god\’s name are the liberals? Why aren\’t there hundred of thousands of Canadians marching in the streets?\” I guess it\’s because they\’ve bought into the rhetoric being fed to them by the proponents of Sharia, that this matter doesn\’t concern and won\’t have any affect on non-muslims. Or that making Sharia legally binding would be a liberal gesture of multi-culturalism on the part of the Ontario government.
But the truth is that affirming Sharia, as a legitimate legal system, in Canada would not only set back Liberal causes in that country, but around the world. Sharia is anti-women\’s rights, anti-equality of the sexes, anti-gay rights, anti-religious freedom, anti-personal expression, and i could go on and on. In other words Sharia is apposed to all the things that liberal thinkers everywhere are suppose to be advocating and in favor of.
It seems to me that Canada has to decide what it stands for. Either it believes in secularism, or it does not. Either it believes in equal rights among the sexes, or it does not. Either it believes that one set of laws should apply equally and fairly among it\’s citizenry, or it does not. As far as i\’m concerned Canada is no longer a secular society, but a semi-religious state. Only god knows where we go from here.
It always amazes me when conservatives complain about elitism at the same time touting vouchers for kids to go to private schools where the education is better and kids aren\’t bombarded with popular culture.
Conservatives will also tell you that government needs to stay out of our lives, but they insist on ramming religion down our throats at every opportunity.
The most elitist (snobbish) people on the face of the earth are fundamentalists, who actually believe their religion, whatever it is, is \”it\”. I believe deeply in God and Jesus, but I have no illusions that the way in which I believe is the ultimate.
And what is more elitist than God? The
one who knows all, sees all and is everywhere present. Ultimately, the best, the wisest.
after having read the article and postings, I think that my writing on the matter will be a waste since this forum is mainly a meeting place of orientalists, Islamophobs, and narrow-minded feminists who see their development of women rights as equally applicable everywhere else! If anyone here wants to get a bigger picture of the matter they should visist other forum and sites where Muslim men AND women write about THEIR views!! And, stop dilluding yourselves that you speak on behalf of Muslim women – I doubt you know them much judging from what you write!
Young girls are subject to numerous restrictions in the Christian world.
Certain parts of their bodies are required to be covered. Certain behavours are stated to be intolerable and evil.
Azam Kamguian sets this unacknowledged list as norm-less. This is so common and so dumb.
If Islam has a different, or extended list of norms, who is Kamguian or indeed the French Government to say this new list is opression and the Christian list of norms is natural?
There are three *real* arguments against GM food, which are not addressed in DeGregori\’s article.
1) Farmer \”lock-in\”. Since farmers planting GM seed must agree not to store any grain as seed for the following year, the farmer is effectively tied to a corporation. It is possible to change corporations, but how to change to *no* corporation?
2) It\’s going to escape. The obvious example is the Schmeiser vs. Monsanto case in Canada. The presence of patents in organisms coupled with the unpredictable behaviour of anything biological gives corporations a very large hammer to beat anyone trying to duck point 1.
3) Pace of Evolution. Antibiotics, rat poisons, rabbit diseases and pesticides are effective for noticeably finite periods before resistance emerges. The pace at which this happens depends on the severity. In wiping out cockroaches in a building, 100% destruction is the aim, 50% is not good, but 99% is the worst possible result – it just clears the field for the 1% with most resistance. Embarking on a \”we can win outright\” course is going to result in an acceleration of the contest. It doesn\’t matter whether the biotech companies can keep ahead of the struggle – let\’s assume they can. But any species that is *not* being hot-housed are going to be collateral damage. The new situation is that you *need* a biotech company for everything.
In summary: there are some very important arguments against GM food that have nothing whatsoever to do with GM anything, and everything to do with who is running the show – and note the overlap between anti-GM and anti-corporate. There\’s a lot of muddle-headedness and astrology in there, but there\’s also a very strong wish to be able to vote (in the supermarket) for whether we go in this direction.
Given that everywhere not in the middle of a civil war is capable of producing a food surplus, can somebody remind me why we\’re rushing madly for GM food in the first place please?
Just read your reply to a psychoanalyst, and I just have to agree. Ever since I started reading sites like skepdic.com and quackwatch.org, I\’ve found out just how soft (at best) and pseudoscientific (at worst) psychology can be, and you\’ve done a splendid job of summarizing the problems with it.
I imagine having a good talk with a psychologist could inspire a person to solve their (non-chemical) problems, but I imagine now it\’d be just as good (and much cheaper) to do so with friends and family.
Re Ronan Cunniffe\’s comments on GM foods and the Schmeiser vs. Monsanto case in Canada. Schmeiser stole the GM seeds. \”On March 29, 2001, Federal Court Justice, Andrew MacKay, ruled that Mr. Schmeiser “knew or ought to have known” that he had saved and planted seed that was Roundup tolerant and had therefore infringed Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patented technology\”.
Islam needs to be stopped in its tracks. The reasons are obvious.
1) It is incompatible with international concept of human rights as defined by universal declaration of human rights by the UN. This is the reason muslim have their own human right declaration.
2)Islam is not compatible with secular democracy and so muslims need to be educated to realise that they need to change their ideas about islam.
3) All muslim states are a disgrace, thanks to their adherence to islam that has ruined their local societies and their cultures as well as their own true identities.
So Canada must not be the very first to allow islam legitimacy. Leave this barbarous cult to itself to die away. What will Canadians do if islam created problems for them as it has done for the countries whereof these muslims come who are demanding their shariah rule? Should they not be better off back home? How about Canadian converts to islam, are they going to be loyal citizens of Canada?
Re:hijab veiling article
I did agree with the judges ruling about adhering to school uniform as that girl is residing in a country where uniform is required, plus she was allowed to wear a head veil. I also do agree that in some circumstances the hijab is a symbol of oppression but there is also the other side of the arguement where some muslim women say that it gives them the opposite which is the liberating freedom to walk about without worrying about male attention. Plus people find it hard to understand in this country because it is the social norm for women to be allowed to wear what they want, i think sometimes we are ignorant in the fact that we say the way we live as the right way to live. However, I personally would alllow a child to wear what she wants and then when she is old enough to make her own choice, because thats what you get in this country choice and i dont think its very fair that asian women are living in this country of choice yet in some cases having to stick to very traiditional rules.
\”Arrogance\” and Knowledge, by Brian Leiter. A response.
I make a case for democracy in opinion.
I think wisdom lies in tracing a sensible path to a worthy outcome. Scientific discourse may not always help us do that. If opposition to scientific discourse grows, that may be a warning to look around to see if we\’re missing something. Normally I think we do this, out of respect for other people\’s feelings, but contempt for people on the other side of the culture wars has become so entrenched our response to opposition is to reject such warnings out of hand.
Here are some cautions.
Discourse is not necessarily truth. Living creatures did not necessarily evolve through natural selection, that may be more a kind of discourse than truth. If it offends people, maybe that says it\’s incomplete, maybe dangerously so, and this part of our discourse needs work. By listening more, we might identify what aspect of our discourse is weak. If you say that natural selection is not an essential part of your discourse, is it treated as such, as other than true doctrine, in the biology textbooks offered in schools?
Is our insistance on truth likely to lead to greater happiness? This breaks down into such issues as, which is more important, truth or happiness? If happiness, does truth always lead to more happiness, or is it only the particular truths we\’re defending that will lead to more happiness? If you think truth is more important than happiness, have you checked around to see that everyone agrees?
Has the evolution of culture out of prior beliefs created a structure of interactions and transactions that a too-quick adoption of evolution might collapse? Would it be wiser to plan a more gradual conversion of belief from tradition to scientific discourse to maintain essential legal and social institutions? Do you feel entitled to move ahead at your own rapid clip if others feel you\’re moving faster than is wise for a society like ours? Do you have that right? What gives you that right? Because you use a certain kind of discourse?
There\’s wry humor today in looking back on past controversies in scientific discourse, such as the phlogiston theory and preformationism. While you may feel personally precluded from such error, are you entitled to force others to adopt your form of discourse? I think humility forbids such an insistance. It shows no respect for others who may think as deeply as you, but along other tracks of discourse.
Do you think discourse, eg contemporary statements of evolutionary theory, is the same as truth? If so, on what grounds do you assert that?
Just because you can \”prove\” something doesn\’t mean it is a fruitful path, or that it leads to a worthy outcome.
Doesn\’t every precedent confirm that you can\’t compel people to belief? If your discourse does not persuade people, then I suggest you rewrite your discourse. If you believe that your discourse is too coincident with the truth, aren\’t you embarrassed to be so sure, when so many others in the past were wrong? Are you sure the emperor is wearing clothes?
Discourse and truth–Darwin held that the peahen designed the peacock\’s tail because she had an esthetic sense similar to ours. Others thought this was a faulty piece of discourse, that he was applying categories incorrectly. Each discourse was the application of human concepts to a natural phenomenon. There are hugely important implications to each side, yet I don\’t think one is yet entitled to demand that one or other side be taught in schools. And I think when you pull that thread, a lot of the fabric of discourse of evolutionary theory can be undone. To me that doesn\’t diminish how happy evolutionary theory makes me, but it does make me think twice before insisting that one kind of discourse be made \”official\”.
Here\’s an example of evolutionary discourse that is clearly faulty, that shows how unwise it would be to follow current evolutionary discourse out the window. To anyone who\’s creative it\’s obvious that living creatures are intelligently designed. In the Creationist discourse, the word \”intelligent\” resonated with the idea of an intelligent Creator, and hence was paraded as proof of the existence of God. Evolutionists responded by denying that evolution designs intelligently, and so were driven into a clearly false line of discourse. Clearly false because, if we are evolved, then so is our design sense, it presumably functions to help us make useful distinctions among other evolved creatures, so we are made such as to find evolved creatures intelligently, or well, designed. This is good evolutionary discourse. By contrast the shiboleth that evolution has nothing to do with intelligent design is very bad and vulnerable discourse. If evolutionary discourse can be painted into a corner so easily, shouldn\’t evolutionists be a little modest about the rest of their discourse, and not assume it\’s god-given?
Since my example of the peahen shows that evolutionary theory is more discourse than truth, isn\’t it proper for scientists and non-scientists alike to have a say in what form of discourse is to become dominant? If the scientific discourse is found wanting, isn\’t it up to the scientists to modify their discourse to make it more acceptable? I think this is definitely a voting matter. I believe evolutionary theory would end up stronger if submitted to a democratic process than if confined to the influence of a narrow range of genes, those most conducive to maths and logic-chopping.
Shaun Johnston
http://www.evolvedself.com
\”Banning the veil in school is a progressive measure, but more is needed. In order to fully protect girls the hijab should be banned everywhere and in every Islamic society for girls under 16.\”
This is an amazingly dangerous idea. Having government decide how one group shall raise their children automatically makes ALL citizens subject to the same whims. Given the Government of Canada\’s idiotic behaviour on a host of issues, it would be insane to allow them any power over children and parenting than they already have.
Even taking into account organised religion, belief is individual, and as such does not need qualifying, and belief by definition does not require factual substantiation. Belief, unlike science does not exist for the progression of man, but for the individual, thus scientists always have something to prove, and so are more often than not frustrated, while those with religious beliefs have nothing to strive for but their own piece of mind, and so can afford to be smug. The people who hold the answers are science teachers in religious schools (!). But this begs the question, is comparing science and religion just like comparing music and photography? Both are beautiful and necessary, but very different.
A great article! Good luck!
At last someone willing to say that veils and covering garments enforced by religious fundalmentalists are wrong. I fully agree – especially because of the point raised that they are restricted in their movements and ability to have a so called \”normal\” childhood.
What I do not understand is why these women and young girls are the ones that fought against the ban, that they are the ones fighting to keep their veils on, how can anyone fight for their own prosecution?
My final point is that although the writer raises interesting points, banning all over the world would be virtually impossible and might lead to revolt among the women who have been brain washed all their life, what we need is an educated young generation who will fight for their own right.
I was devastated to hear that Canada; a supposedly modern and progressive society, was going to legitimize the cruel, archaic and patriachal system known as Sharia. Sharia is the reason that hundreds of women are stoned to death, in muslim countries, every year. It is the reason that gay men are brutally beheaded and women are left prisoners in their own homes. How Canada, a country that is suppose to stand for equality and justice, can allow this virus to infect it\’s legal system? is simply beyond my comprehension.
At a time when women and other minorities (gays and non-believers) who already live under this form of jurisprudence, are crying in agony for the world to rescue them from the cruelty that it inflicts. Canada seems all too ready to add to this choir of pain and suffering. Call me stupid, but I was lead to believe that Canada was a secular society, I guess I was wrong.
Another question I have is \”Where in god\’s name are the liberals? Why aren\’t there hundred of thousands of Canadians marching in the streets?\” I guess it\’s because they\’ve bought into the rhetoric being fed to them by the proponents of Sharia, that this matter doesn\’t concern and won\’t have any affect on non-muslims. Or that making Sharia legally binding would be a liberal gesture of multi-culturalism on the part of the Ontario government.
But the truth is that affirming Sharia, as a legitimate legal system, in Canada would not only set back Liberal causes in that country, but around the world. Sharia is anti-women\’s rights, anti-equality of the sexes, anti-gay rights, anti-religious freedom, anti-personal expression, and i could go on and on. In other words Sharia is apposed to all the things that liberal thinkers everywhere are suppose to be advocating and in favor of.
It seems to me that Canada has to decide what it stands for. Either it believes in secularism, or it does not. Either it believes in equal rights among the sexes, or it does not. Either it believes that one set of laws should apply equally and fairly among it\’s citizenry, or it does not. As far as i\’m concerned Canada is no longer a secular society, but a semi-religious state. Only god knows where we go from here.
It always amazes me when conservatives complain about elitism at the same time touting vouchers for kids to go to private schools where the education is better and kids aren\’t bombarded with popular culture.
Conservatives will also tell you that government needs to stay out of our lives, but they insist on ramming religion down our throats at every opportunity.
The most elitist (snobbish) people on the face of the earth are fundamentalists, who actually believe their religion, whatever it is, is \”it\”. I believe deeply in God and Jesus, but I have no illusions that the way in which I believe is the ultimate.
And what is more elitist than God? The
one who knows all, sees all and is everywhere present. Ultimately, the best, the wisest.
after having read the article and postings, I think that my writing on the matter will be a waste since this forum is mainly a meeting place of orientalists, Islamophobs, and narrow-minded feminists who see their development of women rights as equally applicable everywhere else! If anyone here wants to get a bigger picture of the matter they should visist other forum and sites where Muslim men AND women write about THEIR views!! And, stop dilluding yourselves that you speak on behalf of Muslim women – I doubt you know them much judging from what you write!
re:Veiling young girls must be banned!
This is an astoundingly un-self-aware
piece.
Young girls are subject to numerous restrictions in the Christian world.
Certain parts of their bodies are required to be covered. Certain behavours are stated to be intolerable and evil.
Azam Kamguian sets this unacknowledged list as norm-less. This is so common and so dumb.
If Islam has a different, or extended list of norms, who is Kamguian or indeed the French Government to say this new list is opression and the Christian list of norms is natural?
Norms exist. Get over it.
G Bruno
http://gbruno.tblog.com
Re: GM-food
There are three *real* arguments against GM food, which are not addressed in DeGregori\’s article.
1) Farmer \”lock-in\”. Since farmers planting GM seed must agree not to store any grain as seed for the following year, the farmer is effectively tied to a corporation. It is possible to change corporations, but how to change to *no* corporation?
2) It\’s going to escape. The obvious example is the Schmeiser vs. Monsanto case in Canada. The presence of patents in organisms coupled with the unpredictable behaviour of anything biological gives corporations a very large hammer to beat anyone trying to duck point 1.
3) Pace of Evolution. Antibiotics, rat poisons, rabbit diseases and pesticides are effective for noticeably finite periods before resistance emerges. The pace at which this happens depends on the severity. In wiping out cockroaches in a building, 100% destruction is the aim, 50% is not good, but 99% is the worst possible result – it just clears the field for the 1% with most resistance. Embarking on a \”we can win outright\” course is going to result in an acceleration of the contest. It doesn\’t matter whether the biotech companies can keep ahead of the struggle – let\’s assume they can. But any species that is *not* being hot-housed are going to be collateral damage. The new situation is that you *need* a biotech company for everything.
In summary: there are some very important arguments against GM food that have nothing whatsoever to do with GM anything, and everything to do with who is running the show – and note the overlap between anti-GM and anti-corporate. There\’s a lot of muddle-headedness and astrology in there, but there\’s also a very strong wish to be able to vote (in the supermarket) for whether we go in this direction.
Given that everywhere not in the middle of a civil war is capable of producing a food surplus, can somebody remind me why we\’re rushing madly for GM food in the first place please?
Ronan
Just read your reply to a psychoanalyst, and I just have to agree. Ever since I started reading sites like skepdic.com and quackwatch.org, I\’ve found out just how soft (at best) and pseudoscientific (at worst) psychology can be, and you\’ve done a splendid job of summarizing the problems with it.
I imagine having a good talk with a psychologist could inspire a person to solve their (non-chemical) problems, but I imagine now it\’d be just as good (and much cheaper) to do so with friends and family.
Re Ronan Cunniffe\’s comments on GM foods and the Schmeiser vs. Monsanto case in Canada. Schmeiser stole the GM seeds. \”On March 29, 2001, Federal Court Justice, Andrew MacKay, ruled that Mr. Schmeiser “knew or ought to have known” that he had saved and planted seed that was Roundup tolerant and had therefore infringed Monsanto’s Roundup Ready patented technology\”.
This is an excellent article for my Introduction to Philosophy classes and always provokes meaningful discussions.
Islam needs to be stopped in its tracks. The reasons are obvious.
1) It is incompatible with international concept of human rights as defined by universal declaration of human rights by the UN. This is the reason muslim have their own human right declaration.
2)Islam is not compatible with secular democracy and so muslims need to be educated to realise that they need to change their ideas about islam.
3) All muslim states are a disgrace, thanks to their adherence to islam that has ruined their local societies and their cultures as well as their own true identities.
See http://www.ntpi.org/html/sitemap1.html and the like.
So Canada must not be the very first to allow islam legitimacy. Leave this barbarous cult to itself to die away. What will Canadians do if islam created problems for them as it has done for the countries whereof these muslims come who are demanding their shariah rule? Should they not be better off back home? How about Canadian converts to islam, are they going to be loyal citizens of Canada?