Talk:Muslim Association of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Terrorism links[edit]

In today's newspapers, the RCMP note that the Muslim Association of Canada provided money to a terrorist organization from 2001 to 2010, and that the Association has been under police surveillance for financing terrorists, as of March 6, 2014. Information related to this should be added to the article, but we should find additional sources (the Toronto Sun is a tabloid), and be careful in the wording. From a quick search, the information I found shows that the group that MAC was donating to was not listed as a terrorist organisation at the time of the donations. --Yamla (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of other people added this information, along with information from a press release acknowledging this support but indicating that financing stopped at some unspecified point in the past, prior to IRFAN-Canada's delisting as a charitable organization. This issue (adding the information) is now resolved. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus on "Alleged"[edit]

Several IPs have been adding the word Alleged to "Connections to Hamas", despite the fact that the ties have been confirmed by the RCMP (Which is a trustworthy source). I propose that we rename it to "Previous Connections with Hamas" with a sentence in the content that states that they are not funding IRFAN-Canada any more. This is a proper, non-partisan solution that most clearly states its reality. Redflorist (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A minor correction: The IPs actually added "alleged" to "Connection to A Terrorist Group". I changed it to Hamas afterwards. Haminoon (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps even changing it to "Previous Connections to IRFAN", so that these IPs do not harper on the fact that MAC never directly associated with Hamas. Although changing it to "Previous Connections with Hamas" is a good idea as well. CanadaProud12 (talk)
I don't like "Previous Connections to IRFAN" because hardly anyone has heard of IRFAN. "Previous connections with Hamas" should be okay as long as the body text makes it clear the connections were indirect. Haminoon (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Just curious - is "harper" a Canadianism? Haminoon (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I consider it to be. Regardless of one's political leanings, he is the leader of the nation and is well known throughout Canada, potentially even representing many of its ideals. Having been in power for 9 years, he's also one of the few representatives of Canada on the world stage (Alongside Justin Bieber and the previous Governor of Canada). Redflorist (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC) *Correction: This is only about the PM, not the actual word
There's no 'alleged' about it. MAC has acknowledged that they gave money to IRFAN. They have acknowledged IRFAN's relationship with problematic groups. I'm removing that from the title. As to Haminoon's question, "harper" was used long before Harper was in power. I don't think it's a Canadianism, but it's hard to be sure. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a reference clarifying that MAC was under police surveillance for terrorist funding in 2014. This is important because it goes against MAC's claim that this stopped in 2011. However, I'm now concerned that the article (with my change) swings the tone too far against MAC. Perhaps we could restructure that section a bit? I'm not sure. --Yamla (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a better reference we could use for that? The comments on the Muslim Brotherhood in the article make me think this is a terrible muck-raking piece of journalism. Haminoon (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly concerned with the fact that 3 different IPs have, on 7 separate occasions, edited the article so as to downplay MACs ties with these groups. I support calling it "Previous Connections with Hamas", with a greater explanation in the text about what actually happened. Redflorist (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That certainly seems reasonable to me. I'll edit the article to make the change to the title (though I'm certainly not implying that this matter is settled). Additionally, I'll add a comment noting that editors must take the matter to the talk page before adding 'alleged' (on the basis that MAC has acknowledged the link). I'm not immediately sure how to reword the text, so I'll leave that to Redflorist or other interested editors. --Yamla (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Haminoon that we should do our best to avoid sourcing the Toronto Sun. As well I still feel that we should have the title changed to "Previous connections with IRFAN", because to be fair MAC did have previous connections with IRFAN and not Hamas.CanadaProud12 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
And the origins of harper are 9th century England, it means to tediously dwell on a subject.CanadaProud12 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe the title should change back to Hamas. IRFAN is only really relevant as they are funding a terrorist organisation. Far more people have heard of Hamas than have heard of IRFAN. And MAC *did* have previous connections with Hamas. Those connections were through IRFAN. Alternatively, we could change the title to “Previous connection to terrorist organisations", or perhaps, "Controversy", which would be more generally useful and almost certainly less inflammatory? --Yamla (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
IRFAN is relevant because that’s who MAC was (directly at least) giving money to. As far as we know MAC never spoke to/contacted Hamas. A lot of people might not know IRFAN, but then again what’s wikipedia for? Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m new at this) but if they don’t know what it is, is it not our responsibility to tell them? As is done in the article, mind you. However, changing it to “Controversy” makes a lot of sense to me. CanadaProud12 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with "Controversy". I'm not happy with “Previous connection to terrorist organisations", because IRFAN is not a terrorist org in any normal sense of the word, and its not how we sum up Hamas. Haminoon (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, IRFAN-Canada is indeed a terrorist organisation, according to the Canadian government. As is Hamas. But, I think we've come to a good consensus which means we don't have to debate whether or not to consider the Canadian government's designation as relevant here. :) I'll change the title to 'Controversies', and I sincerely thank you for helping us come up with appropriate titles and wording, around a particularly difficult area here. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this even a controversy?[edit]

Are MAC donations to IRFAN before IRFAN was designated a terror group even a controversy? AFAIK, only QMI agency reported this and this was copied by tabloids like the Toronto Sun. If you read their article, its fairly clear that last allegation of MAC involving itself with IRFAN is March 2014. IRFAN wasn't designated as terrorist until April 2014. How is this controversial or worthy of reporting?VR talk 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Muslim Association of Canada claims that all donations stopped after IRFAN was delisted in 2011. However, the allegations (and sworn statements) are that the donations continued until 2014. I think that's incredibly relevant. I mean, I think it'd be relevant even if the donations stopped in 2011, before IRFAN was delisted, given that IRFAN turns out to have ties to a designated terrorist group. Note that there's no claim in the article, and I most certainly make no claim here, that the Muslim Association of Canada was deliberately funding a terrorist group. But worth mentioning this funding of IRFAN in the article? Most certainly. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)