No, by the Mormons. :roll: What were you thinking?
Do what it takes to stop it. As far as I'm concerned, spreading an ideology to eventually overtake a country's government, legal system and people is an act of law. Respond accordingly, whatever it takes. This may include non-combative operations, such as a million pig paradrop. :hmm: Be creative.
That's the 64,000 dollar question. I'll quote one of many articles written by JihadWatch (sorry! sorry! sorry!) VP Hugh Fitzgerald:
Again, big tactical problem. I suggest you thoroughly read through the article Defeating Jihad.
Absolutely!
Again, tactical problem. Yep, families are not broken up. Where should they go to? Frankly, I don't give a damn. Give them as many choices as possible, for all I care.
Pay attention to what they are saying. They will not stop. Imposing Sharia is an obligation, once Muslims view themselves as being in power. Will it take 20, 50, a 100 years? Who knows! But that's the direction they're heading in. And they will try to expedite the matter with whatever tools they are offered, democracy being one of the strongest.

Avon, let me see if I can sum up your position on how effectively to ban Islam from what you've posted so far here, and the articles you linked, and feel free to make any additions or corrections of course:

1. Any country that attempts to export any form of Islamic ideology must be interpreted as having undertaken an act of war, which must then be responded to with that in mind; all options are on the table in response, including military action and the nuclear option.

2. Muslim emigration to non-Muslim countries must be halted and even reversed. Further, Muslim goods must be boycotted; and in this vein we must become independent of ME oil.

3. Adherents of Islam must be denied entry into our countries, and those already here must be deported; citizenship and family issues are of secondary importance.

I have no comments of my own to make, at this point I am more interested in gaining knowledge of the various problems and solutions that make up this culture clash and your additions here are more food for thought.

Nuclear? Who said such a thing? You are indeed puting words into my mouth.

Military action? If the shoe fits.
:yep:
As long as they actively continue to promote Islam abroad.
This is an excellent weapon against Islam. The sooner the better. Obviously it's a good idea for environmental reasons as well. The world should be pursuing a petroleum reduction policy irregardless of who sits on the wells.
Yes.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnis...8/1638909.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...0876print.html

No, I was extrapolating from when you said states exporting Islam should be crushed and answered my question as to if you meant "anhilated" by replying "whatever it takes". I took "whatever it takes" to mean military power, if necessary, which unless you draw the line (and you didn't) includes conventional and nuclear capability. And I invited you to correct anything I misunderstood, so there was no intention on my part to put words into your mouth.

While we disagree on many things, you and I, we do see eye to eye here. For me this is a no brainer, no matter how you feel about Islam and is one issue that everyone from either camp should be able to agree on. My reasons are these:

a. it is morally repugnant to subsidize theocratic dictatorships and the atrocious human rights records that go along with them by buying their goods (minus the theocratic element, a similar case could be made for China but that is another topic);

b. dependence on a resource so critical to our own economy provides strong incentive to our governments to repeatedly intervene in these regions with the sole purpose of "stabilizing" the supply of this resource, and these interventions have long term unintended consequences that more often than not are to our own detriment (blowback);

c. Climate change is an established scientific fact, the debate is over, and fossil fuels are a major contributor to this phenomena; further, we are long past the point of peak oil and the longer we remain dependent on it and dependent upon foreign sources the more vulnerable we become to increasingly severe price shocks and turmoil within our own economies and all that depends on it.

d. Lastly, there are many competitors for this dwindling resource and not all of them have a history of cordial relations toward one another. China, in particular, is every bit as dependent on fossil fuels as we are while having an ever increasing thirst that in the coming decades will become unquenchable; if we are still as dependent on it as they are, then an energy war is a near certainty (this is decades away yet, and not a certainty by any stretch if common sense should ever prevail by developing and making extensive use of alternative energy first).

From the article:

"The Province of Quebec has its own immigration policy at present. That policy does not, however, threaten only Quebec. For those immigrants, once they have been admitted to Quebec, then become citizens not of the province, but of Canada itself. And they can move freely anywhere in Canada. Thus does an immigration policy fashioned for reasons of Quebec nationalism threaten the safety of Canadians in Alberta or British Columbia. Should this not be a matter for all Canadians to discuss?"

And now the facts:

"The Québec and federal governments share jurisdiction with respect to immigration.
Québec is responsible for selecting immigrants wishing to settle within its territory and who will enter the labour market. Canada is responsible for their admission."

http://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.q...admission.html

I'm not even going to get into the rest of the JW article, but this illustrates well how they twist, omit, and distort the facts to comform to whatever slant they want to push. :roll:

As to JW's last point, almost every other province in Canada has a similar partnership of their own on immigration that's known as the Provincial Nomination program - but none of them, including Quebec, have the final say on immigration.

Edit: I'll take an objective look at the other articles you posted Skybird, and I'll try and keep and open mind.

Water can carve the most solid of the rocks given enough time and energy.

Let's analyze this again.

It was the Canadians who chose to create special courts, and when Muslims demanded to have their own piece of the pie, all hell broke loose, and the Canadian Guv'nor rolled back.

What do we see here? We see the whole point of the Islamic threat in Europe. Can I write it in caps to pretend I'm screaming or speaking loudly?

ISLAM IS NO THREAT ALONE, BY ITSELF!

Islam is a threat in Europe because Europeans believe there will be no more Sharia law in Europe, anywhere, in any form, ever again and so they are not vigilant nor care about it. It's all paranoia, Islamophobia and hysteria.

However, there are other Europeans who back the Islamic Sharia. It is the alliance of Europeans and Islam that makes Islam a threat. If you remove the European allies or Islam the alliance is broken either way and Islam becomes powerless, harmless as it was decades ago, back to the cryogenic sleeper state, back to hiding under the Persian carpet.

Islam is only a threat when too many, too influencial, too brainwashing or too malevolent Canadians decide to adopt Islam as a rather dangerous pet.

You are right when you say Islam won't ever implement Sharia in Canada. They won't. Unless 80% of the population becomes Muslim. It's going to be the Canadians, the Premier, the parliament, the prime-minister, the Queen, the secular, the rational, your neighbor.

Fine.
Agree 95%. I remain neutral about the cause of global warming but it makes no difference with regard to fossil fuel utilization for all the other reasons that you've given, in addition to the known environmental impact issues even without consideration to global warming.

JW does not contradict the facts. You may wish to call it semi-independent immigration policy but it is NOT the equivalent of federal policy in the other provinces.

And then the question is how much oversight does the non-Quebecian federal authorities apply or do they more often than not rubber stamp what the Quebecian government views as their necessary immigration needs?

Jihad Watch is not twisting the facts. It's pointing out an obvious hole in the fence. Furthermore, this is one of the last points of concern stated in the JW article. What about every said before this point? Or shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say?
[quote]:nope:

It shows how hard you will look for flippant excuses to deride anything JW states.
Rubberstamping. Rubberstamping. This is what happens when you let bureaucrats shift their workloads onto others.

"Was hat er denn jetzt schon wieder?" Can't add much myself to what AL said.Wasn't it also you, Scandium, or do I mix you up with another guy, who said some weeks ago that he cannot see Western societies being under increasing influence by sharia laws - because so far not one parliament has started a debate on how to implement it? With that kind of logic, you will not reach far. It's the typical bureaucrat-thinking: if something is not said on a piece of paper with a stamp on it, it does not exist.

I don't know if Scandium said it as well, but definitely I did.

I withdraw my statement above and apologize, then. But as I indicated, this time I was not 100% sure about Scandium anyway.

They were not courts, the whole point was to reduce some of the load on the court system by allowing religious leaders to arbitrate some civil disputes that would otherwise be handled by the courts.

As to all hell breaking lose, it began when the government had to let thousands of possible criminals go because they had underfunded the justice system to the point that the trial system had essentially collapsed.

Sharia was the straw that broke the camel's back, although many were very much opposed to seeing religious leaders of any stripe being granted the role of arbiter in our secular society, Sharia and its connotations was something everyone could rally against and it became the poster child for the opposition movement to this style of arbitration. And when one looks at countries that do have Sharia, the opposition to it is legitimate and well founded, no matter how "defanged" our own particularly mild form of it that was permitted. It is a slippery slope and the wrong direction to go. And, by the way, I was one of the ones who opposed this form of arbitration, though my opposition wasn't limited to Sharia; I simply felt religion and the state are things to be kept separate and Sharia was tangible proof of what happens when you allow the two to mix.

There is no need for caps, no. Sharia is not a thing that belongs in any Western country (or any other for that matter) and if Europeans feel they are in danger of it being implemented than its entirely reasonable that they take appropriate measures to prevent this from happening.

If they are in danger of Sharia being implemented, then it is neither Islamophobia nor hysteria; it is a legitimate concern. If they are in no danger of this happening, then perhaps they are paranoid. I don't know, to be honest. I will allow though that it is a legitimate discussion that belongs in both the private and the political sphere and that if this can happen there, then measures need to be undertaken to ensure it cannot happen.

Point taken.

If you're referring to Ontario's 14 year experiment in religious arbitration, then you are citing the wrong factors as none of those things were involved. If you're not, then having already allowed a limited form of Sharia in one province before abolishing religious arbitration, I would say we are Sharia proof in part because our experiment with the limited form put it on trial here where the discussion and the studies have already taken place and the awareness has already been raised. Then there is the fact that full blown Sharia would violate our Charter of Rights and freedoms which is the supreme immutable law of the land in Canada that trumps all legislation.

Do you believe this is a likely scenario? I don't, and the facts bear this out: 77.1% of Canadians are Christian, 17% have no religious affiliation, and only 6.3% are affiliated with other religions of which category Islam is among (along with Satanism, Wicca, Buddhism, etc).

In terms of natural population growth, the fastest growing demographic group in Canada are the aboriginal peoples. We rely more on immigration, however, but these come from all parts of the world: Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand, the U.S., Mexico, South America, and the Middle East. Many of those regions are not known for their Muslim populations, and as poverty is a fact of life for many of them and as travel from Africa or the Middle East to Canada is not cheap, we attract far fewer Muslims than does Europe which is closer and more accessable.

Now then, all of that aside, to impose Sharia they would not only need to take control of Parliment but also the Supreme Court of Canada (which can overturn any legislation that is not in conformance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), and there may still be other barriers as well. Based on the above this is about as likely as Parliment being taken over by immigrants from Alpha Centauri.

Wow! Is this thread still going on?

I agree. Simple solution - buy yourself a big gun and get ready to use it. I have an extra if you have $$$.

-S

PS. Bible says you should arm yourself for the end of time. I suggest you follow that advice! :)