Respect our values or Leave

[zipperhead_cop]

I think Mr. Chen's trial on the forceable confinement and assault is quite the joke. They were quite civil in their actions. They did not harm the thief in any way, except for maybe his huge ego. They could have done much much worse. Instead, they waited ernestly for the 'law' to come. It makes a
whole lot of sense to me.

Every day I come up against the great divide between what is right and what is lawful.  It is a massive juggling act that all police have to do within themselves.  Lets face it; as the bumper sticker says, "There are a great many people that are only alive because it is against the law to kill them". 

Am I pleased that Mr. Chen took ownership of his problem and did something decisive?  Absolutely.  If there were more people like him who were willing to step up when the time of need arose, life everywhere would be better.  He did the RIGHT thing.  However, the law here is quite clear.  That was not a lawful arrest.  Couple that with the fact that the Toronto area appears, for all intents and purposes, to be morally bankrupt as it is, how is it you are going to ask the officer that attended to put their job and personal liability on the line when they clearly have evidence of a criminal act that occured?  The real bad guy got charged.  But guess what?  Bad guys know the law as well as I do.  When Mr. Chen grabbed that clown and used actual physical restraints on him, that useless crackhead probably had visions of dollar signs in his head.  So now the police arrive.  How can they ignore one crime and prosecute the other?  Again, we have what is right vs what is lawful.  So now the officer does what is right, ignores the fact that the bad guy got arrested unlawfully and bad guy proptly marches down to Duey, Cheetum and Howe lawfirm and sues TPS, Mr. Chen, the officer involved and the City of Toronto.  Guess who has the deep pockets?  So rather than get bogged in an expensive civil suit, the City insurance company throws $5000 at bad guy to make him go away. 

So, does the officer ignore Mr. Chen's illegal act and potentially give the POS society burden one awesome crack-week vacation or does he do what his oath of office requires him to do and enforce the law? 

At such time someone can push through some manditory sentencing guidelines for repeat property offenders or a requirement for a Crown to proceed by way of indictment at a certain point (I could name at least five people in the Windsor area that have over 70 Theft Under $5000 convictions and have NEVER been prosecuted by way of indictment) don't expect anything to change.  Don't leave your nice things lying around. 

 

[57Chevy]

While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were illegal. What
was he supposed to do ?
Maybe the next time it won't be someone as civil as Mr. Chen.......and no-one would ever know about
a real unlawful confinement......like chained in the basement and forced to eat bot-choy for a week
or so.
Or just outright beaten half to death.
When justice does not prevail.........then local vigilante justice grows. And in a city as you describe without morals, there would be no end to it.

As ER C mentioned the civil values of our government are way below an acceptable standard, and I
fully agree.
There is no justice.

IMO Mr. Chen should rip out all those cameras, boost his prices and hire a security guard with a big stick.

 

[Edward Campbell]

While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were illegal. What
was he supposed to do ?

Obviously, I will let z-c provide the full and proper answer because he is an SME, but, as I understand it, a citizen may, lawfully, 'arrest' someone during or immediately after a crime. Mr. Chen waited too long and the police/prosecutors initially classified his actions as kidnapping. That indicates, to me, that Mr. Chen was too far away from the letter of the existing law.

Maybe as, inter alia, Olivia Chow (NDP) proposes in a private member's bill, the law should be amended; I'm not sure what the best interim answer might be, but I am sure that the long term solution must involve formally enshrining property as a fundamental, natural right - equal to life and liberty.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were illegal. What
was he supposed to do ?

He was "supposed" to call the police and keep an eye on the bad guy.  There is no latitude where the law is concerned:

From The Code:

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

It's a no-brainer.  If you lose track of the guy, you lose your arrest authority.  After he is gone, you are no longer "finding committing".  Only a peace officer can arrest on reasonable grounds after the fact.  Once you take that lawful arrest away, everything that happens after that is unlawful. 

Maybe the next time it won't be someone as civil as Mr. Chen.......and no-one would ever know about
a real unlawful confinement......like chained in the basement and forced to eat bot-choy for a week
or so.

Yes, clearly the path to social justice is paved with Gimp trunks and torture dungeons  :  Perhaps you can find a clue on Kijiji? 

Or just outright beaten half to death.
When justice does not prevail.........then local vigilante justice grows. And in a city as you describe without morals, there would be no end to it.

Okay, pitchfork lover.  What country do you live in?  People are apathetic everywhere, forget about in Toronto.  They don't seem to care about anything but catering to special interests and celebrating criminality. 

IMO Mr. Chen should rip out all those cameras, boost his prices and hire a security guard with a big stick.

Your success as a small business owner is almost guaranteed!! 

 

[57Chevy]

Thank you Z C , I see now "what he was supposed to do". I was unaware of that fact 494.(1)(ii)

By the way, I was just pointing out the extreme other end of the spectrum because there is no way of really telling exactly how an 'un-civilized' person could have treated the 'thief' when finally he could get his hands on him. I was not implying on any manner of treatment. So I'm not a pitchfork lover ;D

Mr. Chen acted in a civilized manner and with respect to persons......He did what he thought was the right thing to do.
And obviously he was completely ignorant of any possibility of being arrested for his actions.
If he was aware........His actions would have been different and within the law......so the charges against him should be quashed.

My wife had a small bussiness.......And I remember correctly.....When she got "ripped off" for one of her leather purses, She got really "pissed off".  :nod:
Made good money just the same ;D

 

[Strike]

Has anyone read any of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books?  Here is an immigrant basically espousing what the title of the thread is.  Some very good reading.  My only complaint would be references to the verses she talks about in the Qu'ran.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, indeed, tell a compelling story. She has abandoned Islam because, I think, the fundamentalist version to which she was exposed is out of step with the aspirations of many (most?) people. Like many apostates, she tends to paint her old religions in the darkest possible terms and her new civilization in the brightest. See, e.g. here and here

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Photograph: Chris Buck
The Guardian


For an interesting counterpoint one might try Canadian Muslim reformer and self styled Muslim refusenik Irshad Manji; see e.g. here.

Irshad Manji. Photograph by Danielle St. Laurent 2007


If you are going to read either or both may I also suggest: Bernard Lewis, a scholar with nearly a half century of deep study of Islam to his credit. He, Lewis, is also a rare bird: a clear, concise writer.

You could do worse than starting with Islam: The Religion and the People and, especially, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. The latter book, in my opinion, belongs on most soldiers' bookshelves.

Also, see, e.g. here.


In the interests of objectivity and equality:

Bernard Lewis. (Princeton University)

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is more fuel for the fire:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/canadas-changing-faith/article1741422/

Canada's changing faith

JOE FRIESEN AND SANDRA MARTIN

Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Oct. 05, 2010

It has been elastic enough to withstand the pressures that have hounded it from birth: the skepticism of Quebec, the racial tensions brought on by non-white immigration.

Yet for multiculturalism, the rise of religion in the public sphere poses a new and more daunting challenge. Criminal prosecutions for honour killings, reports of genital mutilation and incidents of female repression have rocked many Canadians’ sense of tolerance. Across Europe, multicultural policies have crumbled as a result of deepening public suspicion of newly assertive religious groups.

Can multiculturalism stretch again to integrate newcomers who define themselves by a force that cuts across lines of ethnicity or national origin?

The numbers tell the tale of an important demographic shift. More than 40 per cent of the people who landed here between 1982 and 2001 have a high degree of religiosity, according to Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey, compared with 26 per cent of native-born Canadians. Many of those immigrants, especially from Latin America and such countries as the Philippines and South Korea, are bolstering congregations at long-established Christian denominations. Others, from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, are primarily Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims, religions that have been practised here since before Canada was a country, but never in such large concentrations. Muslims, for example, are the fastest-growing religious group in Canada. They make up a little more than 2 per cent of the population, but that number is expected to grow to nearly 8 per cent by 2031.

It’s a reality most Canadians would prefer to ignore: Although we think of ourselves as a secular, tolerant society, Canada is becoming increasingly religious because of immigration.

Dealing with that change will require a sustained effort to accommodate one another. But compromise may not come easily. Religious beliefs are protected in the Charter of Rights, which must be interpreted in a manner “consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” But what if those values clash with the principle of equality of men and women? Since there is no established hierarchy of rights, could the right to religious and cultural practice supersede the right to gender equality enshrined in sections 15 and 28?

It’s that kind of multicultural anxiety that has reverberated across Europe and is now increasingly visible in Canada. Following France’s lead, Quebec Premier Jean Charest introduced anti-niqab legislation earlier this year. If passed, Muslim women will be required to remove face coverings if they want access to government venues including schools, hospitals and government buildings. And yet, Quebec also voted to retain the crucifix on the wall of the National Assembly as a historical rather than a religious symbol.

Religious arbitration courts were encouraged for generations in the Christian and Jewish faiths to deflect Family Law disputes from the costly and adversarial legal system. Ontario banned them outright in 2005 rather than allow an Islamic version, popularly described as sharia law, because of the outcry that questioned whether principles of gender equality would be threatened.

The Myth of Tolerance

Canadians have watched the uproar in Europe – where multiculturalism has been roundly condemned for fostering difference and damaging national cohesion – comforted by the thought that their own society seems so much more tolerant. The story we tell ourselves about multiculturalism is a tale of inherent Canadian virtue. The trouble is, it’s not true.

According to Will Kymlicka, a leading philosopher at Queen’s University, Canada’s version of multiculturalism has benefited from unparalleled historic and geographic advantages.

First, Canada does not share a border with a poor country that produces thousands of illegal migrants. Nor does it have an empire-colony relationship, as France does with Algeria, nor a long-term guest worker policy like Germany's, that creates an isolated, ethnic underclass or an unstable pool of resident non-citizens. It doesn’t, as in the Balkans, have a large ethnic minority population with homeland ties to a regional rival. If any of those were true, the debate in Canada would be entirely different, Prof. Kymlicka says.

As well, Canada has had the luxury of choosing its immigrants, which it has done in such a way that no single identity group predominates. It has also chosen highly skilled, highly educated applicants, who could be expected to manage the cultural transition with relative ease.

Finally, Canada was founded in a spirit of pragmatic accommodation between French and English, Catholic and Protestant, and has always had competing national cultures.

By the time Canada’s immigration became overwhelmingly non-white in the 1980s, the idea of multiculturalism had become a Canadian institution. Schoolchildren were brought up with it. The multiculturalism of sari and song was celebrated.

Backlash

The backlash began in the 1990s when the economy soured, creating tension around immigration. Critics such as author Neil Bissoondath and an emerging Reform Party eviscerated multiculturalism for encouraging a shallow citizenship and for defining people based on their differences.

It was around the same time, according to British multicultural theorist Tariq Modood, that a new phase of multicultural history began, when religious groups started to edge out national-origin groups in the public arena. Their signal moment was the outcry among Muslims in the West over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.

The prevailing fear was that multiculturalism would provide cover for barbaric practices, such as female circumcision and domestic “honour” crimes. Even liberal defenders of multiculturalism began to have second thoughts about their cherished ideal. Then the terrorist attacks of 9/11 stirred suspicion about Islam in the West. Countries with the highest proportion of Muslim immigrants also tended to be most highly opposed to multiculturalism, Prof. Kymlicka writes.

From as early as the 1930s, when Governor-General Lord Tweedsmuir told an audience in rural Manitoba, “You will all be better Canadians for being also good Ukrainians,” Canada has held to the belief that immigrants will integrate more successfully if they are not forced to shed their existing identities. Being a hyphenated Canadian, for many, acts as a kind of way-station on the path of adaptation. But religious difference places new stresses on that understanding.

When they conducted their 2007 commission of inquiry on reasonable accommodation in Quebec, commissioners Charles Taylor and Gérard Bouchard were struck by how the debate over accommodation tapped a powerful vein of fear in the public. One response in Quebec has been support for an extreme secularism that would scrub all traces of religion from the public sphere, a solution that strikes many as too heavy-handed.

Religious Guarantees and Biases

Before we condemn the religious and cultural baggage that newcomers bring with them, we could profit from an inward look at our own ambiguous record of religious guarantees and biases, says Janice Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. Discrimination against women is an “obvious fault line” not just in mosques but also in churches and synagogues. “There is a sniff of smugness in our celebration of our successes as a multicultural society,” she writes in “Living Better Multiculturally,” in The Literary Review of Canada.

That smugness tolerates the Catholic Church’s refusal to ordain female priests, the Quebec government’s decision to retain the crucifix in the National Assembly, and the strictures that exclude women from the 10 people who must be present before prayers can begin in many synagogues.

Do we tackle all compromises and inconsistencies that have been blended into the Canadian mosaic in a probably futile attempt to create the perfect society? Or do we muddle along, as we have always done? Honouring our traditions and values as a tolerant, inclusive country, respecting hard-won equality rights – these are by now familiar steps in a well-trod multicultural path. The hard part is “the conscious support of individual freedom of choice,” as Pierre Trudeau put it, by encouraging others – no matter how alien their religious beliefs – to feel free to be themselves, in private and in public.

OK, my, personal, views, again:

1. Religion is a private matter – between you and your gods. It is no business of the state. Theocracies and even ‘established’ religions are socio-political abominations and ought never to be tolerated by thinking people. That includes, by the way, the Dalai Lama’s dream of some sort of a benign Buddhist theocracy for Tibet – it, like every other theocracy, is a bad idea.

2. Freedom of religion, for you, means freedom from religion for me. Your freedoms of belief and expression do not extend to attempting to influence my beliefs. You may oppose or support whatever social institutions you wish – gay marriage, abortion, genital mutilation – in private, and, to the degree that you do not intrude into my private space, and public. Caution: If you want to support some cultural practices – like forcing women to wear burqas or to endure female circumcision then you may run afoul of the law before you offend me.

3. Religion ≠ culture. You are welcome to your religion – or not. Your religion, within some sensible bounds, is welcome here in Canada; we do not even make your temple or whatever pay property taxes. Your culture might not be quite so welcome; in fact it might be unwelcome and ‘we’ – almost all Canadians – may demand that you leave some of it behind; we might not even tolerate some cultural practices in the privacy of your own home because they (those cultural practices) harm others.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

He was "supposed" to call the police and keep an eye on the bad guy.  There is no latitude where the law is concerned:

From The Code:

Quote

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

The operational phrase here is "indictable offence. The definition of an indictable offence is as follows: "an indictable offence is an offence which can only be tried on an indictment after a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a prima facie case to answer or by a grand jury (in contrast to a summary offence). In trials for indictable offences, the accused normally has the right to a jury trial, unless he or she waives that right. In the United States, a crime of similar severity is a felony.

Shoplifting is not considered as an indictable offence, therefore, citizens arrest [S494(1)] does not apply. Chen does have a right under S 494 (2):

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is
(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,
may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

Since Chen detained the shoplifter after the crime was committed, according to the law he doesn't have a leg to stand-on.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not so easy being a witness, is it ya dirtbag? :crybaby:

Friggin' hilarious.......



Thief feared for life, vigilante grocer trial hears

By MICHELE MANDEL, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: October 6, 2010 8:15pm


The plant thief thought he was going to court to put away the “vigilante grocer” who dared to apprehend him and tie him up rather than let him get away again.

Instead, Anthony Bennett was astonished to discover that rather than eliciting sympathy, he was the one on the hot seat Wednesday in the grand Old City Hall courtroom.
“I’m the victim here,” the confused career criminal complained at one point.

It seems everyone else agrees — save the prosecutor and police — the true victim, in fact, is shopkeeper David Chen, who decided to stop the brazen thief who was about to rob his Lucky Moose Food Mart in Chinatown for the second time in two hours.
Chen and two relatives have pleaded not guilty to forcible confinement and assault after making what they believed was a citizen’s arrest on May 23, 2009.

To their surprise — and that of the entire city — the men were hauled into court because the 52-year-old Bennett had shoplifted the plants from the Dundas Ave. W. store an hour before they detained him and wasn’t caught in the act as required by the law.
But the Crown’s unpopular case suffered a serious blow when their star witness admitted for the first time under dogged questioning by defence lawyer Peter Lindsay that he had indeed returned to the scene of the crime that day to pinch more of Chen’s plants.

“By confronting you, he stopped you from stealing more plants and protected his property, correct,” Lindsay demanded.
“That’s correct,” Bennett conceded.

Yet he insisted Chen had no right to then chase him down and hold him for police when he decided to run off.
“I didn’t tell him to friggin’ tie me up and friggin’ throw me in the back of a van,” the slight, balding man yelled indignantly. “It was plants, man. I didn’t go there and rob him with a gun.”

Wiping his brow, kneading his face, Bennett grew increasingly belligerent as the defence lawyer deftly outlined his 30-year-long rap sheet with 43 convictions that included dozens for theft, as well as trafficking in drugs and uttering threats against another shopkeeper.
“That’s your intention, to embarrass me, correct?” the heroin and crack addict said, imitating Lindsay’s questioning style. “What does this got to do with these people tying me up?”

A bemused Justice Ramez Khawly repeatedly urged him to calm down. “Take a deep breath,” the Ontario court judge advised him. “You’re a bit of a hothead.”
To which Bennett said plaintively, “I just want to go home.”
Well, too bad, so sad — for this was the bargain he made.

In return for this testimony — as uncomfortable as it was — the well-known cycling shoplifter pleaded guilty last year to stealing the $60 worth of plants from the Lucky Moose and received a sweetheart deal of 30 days in jail instead of a proposed three months.
But he turned out to be the Crown witness from hell.

Bennett couldn’t identify two of the three men on trial and admitted he lied to police when he told them that he’d never stolen anything from the Lucky Moose and might have been targeted just because he was black.
“I just felt like I was going to be carried away somewhere,” Bennett told the court. “At that point I was in fear for my life, to be perfectly honest.”

His script went awry, though, when asked about the injuries he suffered in this supposedly terrifying apprehension.
The best he could come up with was a swollen left thumb. At the time, he told police that it was his left index finger.

Bennett denied trying to break free from his captors and insisted that any bruises Chen may have suffered must have been “self-inflicted.”
“I didn’t touch nobody,” Bennett hissed.

The career shoplifter must have thought he was going to get sympathy for what the “vigilante grocer” allegedly put him through.
Instead, the low-life unrepentant thief was so enraging that he helped make Chen even more of a hero for being so restrained.

The trial continues.

Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.
[email protected] or 416-947-2231

 

[57Chevy]

:rofl: good article

:alarm: A sign of justice for Mr.Chen

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people. 

Just a quick clarification AF:

Shoplifting is not considered as an indictable offence, therefore, citizens arrest [S494(1)] does not apply. Chen does have a right under S 494 (2):

I think what you are referring to is Theft Under $5000.  It is a dual procedure offence, meaning it can be summary or indictable.  It is up to the Crown how they will proceed.  For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered indictable.  However, I have never heard of someone being charged by way of indictment for Theft Under. 

 

[mariomike]

Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people. 

Oct. 11, 2010
"Chinatown plant thief back in jail: Anthony Bennett is back in jail, once again accused of stealing plants from a Chinese merchant in Toronto’s downtown.":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/chinatown-plant-thief-back-in-jail/article1752002/?cmpid=rss1

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people. 

Just a quick clarification AF:

I think what you are referring to is Theft Under $5000.  It is a dual procedure offence, meaning it can be summary or indictable.  It is up to the Crown how they will proceed.  For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered indictable.  However, I have never heard of someone being charged by way of indictment for Theft Under.

Thanks for your clarification.

 

[57Chevy]

Good to hear  :nod:

Toronto shopkeeper cleared in citizen’s arrest case:

TORONTO — Charges against a Toronto shopkeeper, accused of detaining and assaulting a shoplifter last summer, were dropped Friday.

In May 2009, David Chen, the co-owner of a Chinatown district shop, chased down a man whom he had captured on security video stealing plants from the store earlier in the day. He then captured the man by tying his hands and placing him in a van.

"It is impossible for me to say that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" of Chen's guilt, Justice Ramez Khawly told the court.

"The only conclusion I come to is that I have a reasonable doubt. All such doubts must resolve in favour of the defence. All charges against you are dismissed."

article continues
Mr. Chen

                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)

 

[jollyjacktar]

About time there was a victory for the victims of crime.  I am sick to death of the dirtbags getting all the beaks from the system.  It is about time justice gave a damn for the others.  And the Supreme Court of Canada also allowed a woman from Quebec to sue the Catholic Church as well after a lower court ruled that she waited beyond 3 years to file.  A good day for my spirits overall.

 

[vonGarvin]

About time there was a victory for the victims of crime.  I am sick to death of the dirtbags getting all the beaks from the system.  It is about time justice gave a damn for the others.  And the Supreme Court of Canada also allowed a woman from Quebec to sue the Catholic Church as well after a lower court ruled that she waited beyond 3 years to file.  A good day for my spirits overall.

Agreed, 100%!  A good day for the good guys!

(But I must admit, I find your signature block inflammatory.  "Religion makes you fly planes into buildings" makes my skin crawl.  I would argue that racism and hubris does that to you, but I digress).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

TORONTO — Charges against a Toronto shopkeeper, accused of detaining and assaulting a shoplifter last summer, were dropped Friday.

A minor annoyance.  The charges were not dropped.  He was found not guilty.  That is better than them being dropped.  Glad it worked out for Mr. Chen 

 

[GAP]

Islamist groups seek ‘parallel society’ in Canada: report
Article Link
Stewart Bell, National Post · Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010

TORONTO — A newly released intelligence report says hardline Islamist groups want to build a “parallel society” in Canada, which could undermine the country’s social cohesion and foster violence.

The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Muslims in the West to reject Western society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values.

“Even if the use of violence is not outwardly expressed, the creation of isolated communities can spawn groups that are exclusivist and potentially open to messages in which violence is advocated,” it says. “At a minimum, the existence of such mini-societies undermines resilience and the fostering of a cohesive Canadian nation.”

The report was written by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, which monitors threats to Canada’s national security and is composed of representatives of CSIS, the RCMP, Foreign Affairs, National Defence and other agencies.

It was circulated internally last year after Hizb-ut-Tahrir invited Muslims to a conference in Mississauga, Ont., to discuss the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. A copy of the document was recently released under the Access to Information Act.

“While the issue of violence by Islamist groups has continued to be a counter-terrorism priority for Western governments and particularly security services for many years, Islamist social ideology appears to have gone unstudied, precisely because the use of violence is either unsupported or understated,” it says. “Nevertheless, several Islamist movements advocate a rejection of Western society and mores, and encourage self-imposed isolation of Muslims in the West.”

It says Islamists believe that Islam should govern all aspects of society and that Sharia law and state law should be “synchronized.” Extremists forced to flee Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt now preach these beliefs in the West, it says, adding, “By definition, their world views clash with secular ones. A competition for the hearts and minds of the diaspora Muslims has hence begun.”
More on link

 

[George Wallace]

Islamist groups seek ‘parallel society’ in Canada: report
Article Link
............hardline Islamist groups want to build a “parallel society” in Canada, which could undermine the country’s social cohesion and foster violence.

..................focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values.

“Nevertheless, several Islamist movements advocate a rejection of Western society and mores, and encourage self-imposed isolation of Muslims in the West.”

It says Islamists believe that Islam should govern all aspects of society and that Sharia law and state law should be “synchronized.”

Why do they come to the West if they are not tolerant to the ways of the West?  Conspiracy theorists would say that it is a means for Islam to gain world domination through infiltration of other societies.