Muslim Call to Prayer in Regina (split from Liberal Gov't 2025 - ???)

[Jarnhamar]

they don’t actively practice it today

That's the difference.

 

[QV]

That's the difference.

Hilarious you have to actually point that out... kind of a key point.

 

[Eaglelord17]

So just because they aren’t actively killing anyone today it’s ok? Whats the statute of limitations on such events?

Considering Christians were well involved in genocides up to the 20th century including in this country, if your saying Islam shouldn’t be allowed neither by the same logic should Christianity.

 

[QV]

Listen to yourself.

 

[mariomike]

Ezra offers his point of view.

Interviews some folks in Regina. Opinions vary.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Whats the statute of limitations on such events?

Guess we should still blame Germans??

 

[Jarnhamar]

So just because they aren’t actively killing anyone today it’s ok?

It means one groups level of threat to other people based on religious beliefs in 2026 are considerably less than the other.

Whats the statute of limitations on such events?

Rushing to the streets to celebrate when crusaders air-assault into a music festival and rape and murder the attendees is a good "we're still archaic" marker to me.

Considering Christians were well involved in genocides up to the 20th century including in this country, if your saying Islam shouldn’t be allowed neither by the same logic should Christianity.

The CCRF prohibits discriminating based on religion so that's cut and dry there legally. I completely understand why so many Canadians don't want the call to prayer pumping out over lound speakers once a week or 35 times.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ezra offers his point of view.

Interviews some folks in Regina. Opinions vary.

Quoting Ezra...

 

[Eaglelord17]

It means one groups level of threat to other people based on religious beliefs in 2026 are considerably less than the other.


Rushing to the streets to celebrate when crusaders air-assault into a music festival and rape and murder the attendees is a good "we're still archaic" marker to me.



The CCRF prohibits discriminating based on religion so that's cut and dry there legally. I completely understand why so many Canadians don't want the call to prayer pumping out over lound speakers once a week or 35 times.

I get not wanting a call to prayer going out, I don’t like it either. But not liking something doesn’t mean I get to dictate special rules for others when I won’t apply said rules equally.

Defending people’s rights means defending the right of people to do things I don’t like as well. If you’re not willing to do that then it just means it’s ok to sell out your rights as long as someone else feels it’s justified.

Guess we should still blame Germans??

Ask the natives how much they liked the residential schools, primarily run by various Christian groups. Happened much more recently than the 40s and happened here.

 

[YZT580]

Christianity lays claim to the same principles. Just because they don’t actively practice it today doesn’t mean it can’t be justified under their teachings.

‘Kill them all and let god sort them out’

you are bitter aren't you. and no they can't justify it under their our teachings. Admittedly there are some who have tried and have used the notion of being loyal to your beliefs to draft others but that is a bastardization of what is actually written down. And before you go into the stuff about stoning for adultery and blasphemy I will agree that that is the teaching but then if you weren't screwing around on your wife it wouldn't be an issue at all. And incidentally, that is the Jewish law from 500 B.C. and although written in the Old Testament has not migrated into Christian teaching.

 

[Eaglelord17]

you are bitter aren't you. and no they can't justify it under their our teachings. Admittedly there are some who have tried and have used the notion of being loyal to your beliefs to draft others but that is a bastardization of what is actually written down. And before you go into the stuff about stoning for adultery and blasphemy I will agree that that is the teaching but then if you weren't screwing around on your wife it wouldn't be an issue at all. And incidentally, that is the Jewish law from 500 B.C. and although written in the Old Testament has not migrated into Christian teaching.

Not really bitter, just don’t care for hypocrisy.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I get not wanting a call to prayer going out, I don’t like it either. But not liking something doesn’t mean I get to dictate special rules for others when I won’t apply said rules equally.

That's right, you don't. But the government does. That's why it's illegal for me and you to advertise hiring white only people for a job but not for them advertising black or indigenous only. "Fairness" is whatever the government says it is.

Defending people’s rights means defending the right of people to do things I don’t like as well. If you’re not willing to do that then it just means it’s ok to sell out your rights as long as someone else feels it’s justified.

A number of people don't feel you have the right to dislike whatever you want to dislike. But I get what you're saying. The thing is rights aren't unlimited. Every free society places legal limits on speech, conduct, and expression when they infringe on the rights or safety of others.

Defending rights means protecting legitimate freedoms while recognizing reasonable limits.

 

[YZT580]

Not really bitter, just don’t care for hypocrisy.

if what you said doesn't exist there is no hypocrisy. Which is not to say there aren't lots of areas where hypocrisy does raise its ugly head but what you cite isn't one of them. And much of the hypocrisy comes from people who don't follow the dictates of their faith to begin with. A touchy point being our Catholic Prime Ministers' (all of them) approach to abortion. And please don't take that as trying to side track or stir things up I simply identify it as a proof and an evident one.

 

[Eaglelord17]

That's right, you don't. But the government does. That's why it's illegal for me and you to advertise hiring white only people for a job but not for them advertising black or indigenous only. "Fairness" is whatever the government says it is.

And I rally against the government when it impinges on the rights of others such as your example.

A number of people don't feel you have the right to dislike whatever you want to dislike. But I get what you're saying. The thing is rights aren't unlimited. Every free society places legal limits on speech, conduct, and expression when they infringe on the rights or safety of others.

Defending rights means protecting legitimate freedoms while recognizing reasonable limits.

A number of people would be wrong then. And they also have the right to be wrong. The right to freedom of expression, thought, and opinion would cover that. You can dislike whatever you want, for whatever reason you want.

So now for the important questions for attempting to restrict someones rights and freedoms. What harm does a call to prayer within reasonable hours and reasonable noise level (generally determined by bylaws) do to you or anyone else? In what way does it infringe on your rights or anyone else’s? In what way does it make you or anyone else unsafe? What quantifiable reason can be provided other than I don’t like it?

 

[Jarnhamar]

So now for the important questions for attempting to restrict someones rights and freedoms. What harm does a call to prayer within reasonable hours and reasonable noise level (generally determined by bylaws) do to you or anyone else? In what way does it infringe on your rights or anyone else’s? In what way does it make you or anyone else unsafe? What quantifiable reason can be provided other than I don’t like it?

Freedom of religion protects your right to practice your faith. It doesn't automatically entitle any religion to amplify its message into the surrounding community.

Communities already regulate amplified sound because people have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The Regina mosque got temporary permission to broadcast that. They gor a lot of pushback and shut it down. Seems like a non issue.

People can support freedom of religion while opposing the public amplification hof any faith's call to worship. Speaking of which I seen a YouTube video of a street preacher blasting a sermon into a loudspeaker. I'm on board with shutting that down too, what a nuisance.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Freedom of religion protects your right to practice your faith. It doesn't automatically entitle any religion to amplify its message into the surrounding community.

Communities already regulate amplified sound because people have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes. The Regina mosque got temporary permission to broadcast that. They gor a lot of pushback and shut it down. Seems like a non issue.

People can support freedom of religion while opposing the public amplification hof any faith's call to worship. Speaking of which I seen a YouTube video of a street preacher blasting a sermon into a loudspeaker. I'm on board with shutting that down too, what a nuisance.

Freedom of thought, opinion and EXPRESSION would be the part that allows you to amplify your religious message.

There is no right to not see or hear things that may offend you in a public space. As much as some believe there is.

Freedom of religion means the freedom to practice it, which includes not hiding indoors where only you and a few others know of, if that was what it meant there would be no freedom of religion.

Again my question is what harm is done by it other than you don’t like it?

Them also shutting it down likely has more to do with the threats to them than the desire to stop. Threats the government is supposed to protect people from.

It’s almost ironic how the people who are supposedly the threat are the ones being threatened in our ‘tolerant’ society.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Again my question is what harm is done by it other than you don’t like it?

Because it can be annoying,....the school that surrounds my back yard shuts off the schools bells for the summer, they don't have to, they could leave them ringing for every period just like for the other months.

But obviously they decide being good folk is more important to them......

 

[lenaitch]

The Charter binds the Crown (feds, provinces and, by extension, municipalities). It does not bind private organizations or individuals. A mosque can't breach your Charter rights. If a law exists or is enacted that says a certain activity, like loud sounds, is illegal because it interferes with the lawful enjoyment of property, the courts get to decide if that is reasonable under Section 1. That's the system we have.

I think any argument that tries to compare now with decades or centuries ago is specious at best. Saying that Christianity or western society did bad things in the past so it has no grounds to complain about another faith or society today is, quite frankly, silly.

A strict reading of the Bible can churn up all sorts of atrocities, directives and commands, particularly the Old Testament, but none of them appear in the dogma or doctrine of most mainstream organized Christian religions or the western societies whose morality is generally founded on so-called 'Christian values'. The strength, if you will, of mainstream Christian religions, is they all have some form of central authority and hierarchy; a Pope, Archbishop, whatever. Islam does not. Every Imam, Ayatollah or Koranic scholar is free to interpret and espouse the Koran as they see fit, and a lot of its passages are just as 'scary' as some in the Old Testament when taken literally.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Charter binds the Crown (feds, provinces and, by extension, municipalities). It does not bind private organizations or individuals. A mosque can't breach your Charter rights. If a law exists or is enacted that says a certain activity, like loud sounds, is illegal because it interferes with the lawful enjoyment of property, the courts get to decide if that is reasonable under Section 1. That's the system we have.

I think any argument that tries to compare now with decades or centuries ago is specious at best. Saying that Christianity or western society did bad things in the past so it has no grounds to complain about another faith or society today is, quite frankly, silly.

A strict reading of the Bible can churn up all sorts of atrocities, directives and commands, particularly the Old Testament, but none of them appear in the dogma or doctrine of most mainstream organized Christian religions or the western societies whose morality is generally founded on so-called 'Christian values'. The strength, if you will, of mainstream Christian religions, is they all have some form of central authority and hierarchy; a Pope, Archbishop, whatever. Islam does not. Every Imam, Ayatollah or Koranic scholar is free to interpret and espouse the Koran as they see fit, and a lot of its passages are just as 'scary' as some in the Old Testament when taken literally.

Again answer me in what way a mosque broadcasting a call to prayer during reasonable hours at a reasonable volume harm you or anyone else? Explain to me what charter right you feel it violates because I can list which rights are violated by a complete and total ban on it.

My point about Christianity is there is lots of attempts to defend it, saying how ‘those actions weren’t real Christians actions’, placing it on a pedestal above other religions that should somehow grant it special exemption. That ‘Christian values’ are somehow superior to all other values.

Notably most Islamic values are along the same lines as most Christian values.

There is 1 billion Muslims on the planet, the vast majority aren’t extremists, just as the vast majority of Christians aren’t American evangelicals.