Leaderboard

Nikki Haley tells us what goes on at useless UN security sessions.

Vice President gives NATO members another warning, if your spending 2 % or more then you need to pressure other nations into doing it as well, if you have a plan to spend 2 % then you need to accelerate it . and if you don't have a plan ,"get one" dead line is 2018...... Already our PM has said we are stepping up to the plate with troops.....this is how our nation pays makes it's contributions...Bullshit....how can Canadians expect to be part of an alliance that states in it's constitution that each member "MUST" spend a minimum of 2 % GDP....it also states it must provide troops and equipment when asked to do so......not one or the other..... Currently Canada spends less than .99% of GDP....I wonder, what Trump and trudeau talked about during their first meeting....we know NAFTA was on the table, what we don't know is if defense spending was a topic.....and if so what was said....one would have hoped the clear and transparent Liberal government would not keep us in the dark.....But then again, what do we know we still speculating about the admiral firing...... Perhaps this is what our country needs is to be forced to spend our share of defense costs for our defence pacts we have signed onto....We know this is going to kick most Canadians in the balls as it is their least favorite topic.....I just hope the trump administration keeps it's word, by applying the right pressure .....Now the US has already said pay up or the US will pull out, and if that is the case , then NATO will become a toothless organization with out them. So how does this effect Canada....well Canada will have to decide if it's european partners are worth spending any funding on, we all know the answer to that one, Canadians are not worth it , how will euro's make out........Or will they also decide to pull out.....One can also say that Canada will atleast have to pick up it's share of the Norad Tab, which is currently is less than 10 % today.....But the US might also ask to pony up for our share of Naval and Army costs to protect North America.....either way, those sunny days are over for all the major parties riding the wave to the beach might have a cost to it........Canada will have to pay its share of the Defense of this nation....instead of free loading , and doing squat with all that funding we save by being cheap bastards.......

We already have that existing law. They're wasting taxpayers money over this!

The very fact it EXISTS is proof of its intent...as you mention.

...and I disagree. The current climate politically is to cave to special interest groups of all stripes, and Islam is one of the most vocal. And with current immigration policies only going to get louder.

M103 is nothing but an attack on free speech. I don't know how to say it nicely that many Canadians don't want the same restrictions about criticizing any religion as many muslim countries have. That is why there is the outcry about the speech restricting m103

It's their Imams who's also causing the huge problems for Muslims! When you've got Imams in mosques at prayer time - calling for jihad - you've got a religion problem. Here, according to Canadian-Muslim Tareq Fatah: http://tarekfatah.com/mosque-imams-around-the-world-continue-to-pray-to-allah-to-grant-victory-to-muslims-over-non-muslims/ Victory over "them?" Imams promoting the idea of US against THEM! Promoting JIhad? Who's being deliberately divisive? Divisive, is an understatement! And the Liberals/progressives/NDP are going to tell us we can't express ourselves? Wake up, people!

Is it hyperbole or mere sarcasm? I don't think it's hysterical either. And he's right about the inevitable results of taking large numbers of young men who have never been exposed to more than a female ankle, if that, who have been taught from birth that any woman who doesn't dress modestly is a total whore and putting them on the streets of Sweden, or for that matter, Australia or Canada. Western women do not act in any way, shape or form the way a proper Muslim woman is supposed required to act. In fact, they act in ways which would bring shame and humiliation on a Muslim man from that region if they were related to him. They dress in ways which would get them mobbed in a Middle East country. And the entire Middle east male population has taken it as a given for at least the last few decades, that western women are whores, almost mythical creatures of sexual abandon. I posted a column by a British woman a short time back who related how she and her sisters had to live in Turkey for a year or so when their father was posted there as a diplomat. In 1993, when I was 17 and my sister were 12 and 11, our family moved to the Turkish capital, Ankara, because of my father’s job with the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR. For the next two years we were leered at, jeered at, hissed at, groped and touched, again and again and again, every single time we left the house. The only time this treatment lessened was if we went out with my father. Once I was groped and hit in the face right outside the president’s palace. The guards responded by hooting and laughing and shoving their pelvises at me. And remember that Turkey is supposedly one of the more 'enlightened' of the middle east states. So just what the hell do you think is going to happen when we bring hundreds of thousands of men from that environment here? What happens when one goes to a swimming pool and sees a bunch of teenage girls prancing around in bikinis?

You are being purposely disingenuous. You know as well as everyone else does this is in response to M103 which seeks to curtail free speech re the 'crime" of Islamaphobia. The slippery slope predicted was proven by those claiming this protest a hate crime.

The point was/is that Canada very much did have such religious inclinations to the point of codifying blasphemy into law. Enforcement is secondary to this discussion. Canada has lots of stupid laws on the books.

I agree, one can protest anything anywhere at anytime and with (almost) whatever words they want. However, when the group who organized the protest says: but the rally was in front of a Mosque (nothing to do with free speech) and targeted Muslims (again, nothing to do with free speech) and carried signs and shouted slogans about Muslims (nothing to do with free speech), then impartial observers aren't going to believe the rally was about free speech. They're going to think it was an anti-Muslim rally. And, they're going to say so.

And I say bullsh$t. If that happened we'd have seen the video.

And is this what happened? I highly doubt it. If it had happened this way we would be inundated with video and Iqra Khalid would be screaming even louder I told you so. Her hyperbole is so over the top...'"over a million muslims victimize'd daily'.....we only have a million muslims in Canada...

I don't know why these messages are called "Islamophobia," that even Tory tweeted about it. The protest was prompted by the motion. What do you expect? Some of the protesters are fighting for free speech. There's reasons to be concerned - just look at Tory! He labelled the protest "Islamophobia!" http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/anti-muslim-protest-masjid-toronto-1.3988906 Is that message, Islamophobic? It's a criticism! Get real, Tory! See what slippery slope this motion is? You can't criticize! It's already starting.....and it's only a motion, not even law yet! Had it been law, they'll all be charged with Islamophobia. Why are they even being investigated for hate crimes, I don't know on what ground. For saying what exactly?

From the articles: Overall the messages of support for the mosque and condemnation of the way in which the protesters behaved outnumbered the protesters who showed up.

Queen has been "racist" monarch for 60 years...not just a month.

Sweden's high incidence of sexual assault has been news long before President Trump ran for office. If it is fake news, then it is old fake news: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

As I reported here, there are people trying to discredit Trump and make the people distrust him and now its out in the open. This is more than the Dems vs Reps., this is the elite within the US government. http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/spies-are-plotting-to-take-down-donald-trump-says-former-cia-operative/ar-AAn7UwY?li=AAggFp5

wow, another old song, like it

Too bad section 2 is restricted by section 1.

Is it wrong to say that some of us want immigrants lining up and following the law and coming her legitimately and working hard to get here to expect the system is fair and we don't have a farse at the borders watching people jump the line with zero qualifications claiming they are more needy than these legitimate immigrants? Who are the real anti immigrants-the people supporting the line jumpers I would argue. They make a farse of both the refugee and immigration process. Genuine refugees in need of our help don't have coyotes and taxis driving them to the US border where they get out with 8 or nine pieces of luggage-they own nothing but the clothes on their back. They have no money. They are in camps getting raped and robbed by their fellow countrymen in the camps. This country needs a wake up call real fast. I am not anti refugee or anti immigrant. I am anti people smugglers, coyotes and line jumpers who hide behind the pretext of being refugees to break laws and lie to get here. Yah good. Portray them as needy and desperate but so are those legitimate immigrants lining up and refugees who really need are help. Excuse me if I argue we get our priorities right. No this is not a matter of hating refugees or immigrants its about assuring our laws work properly and are not a joke. Trudeau had to know by appointing a Somali refugee as Immigration Minister, that alone would trigger coyotes to start sending thousands of Somalis here jumping the lines let alone other Africans. That is not racist to say its common sense and human nature. It also didn't take a genius to know when Trudeau could not resist being a smarmy know it all and insult Trump's ban, his words would trigger coyotes to start sending illegals up to Canada. Trudeau is a naïve foo/. He does not understand how the world works and how coyotes work. Coyotes use each and every move by a politician as a marketing tool to sucker millions into paying them to move. This is a world that has shrunk by air travel and where the desperately poor can get to the countries of the so called rich quickly. The collapse of the border system in Europe is a warning sign that the first world and the third and fourth worlds are no longer at a distance, they are in each other's neighbourhoods. This is what causes revolutions lack of distance between extremes in lifestyle. What we see coming is a classic revolution of poor wanting to be like who they think are rich. When that happens the so called rich either dig moats and walls to block out the poor or they shoot them dead. Go on those of you who shed a tear for the poor, what are you willing to do to lower your lifestyle to accommodate the poor? You willing to do that? Yah like hell you are. The same people who claim to be liberal and tolerant of the poor stop when its their own money and lifestyle on the line. Its easy to talk tolerance and compassion like Trudeau does when its not his trust fund or lifestyle on the line After he's done slumming it with the poor and throwing cake crumbs and is out off office back in his elitist cacoon you think the people he does his photo ops with will be in his segregated back yard or the private school of his children or his wife's hair dressing salon. His brother Sasha who produced a propaganda movie about how great Iran was, what does he do exactly for a living? Did he move to Iran and become a Shiite? Hell no he's in Montreal living off a trust fund. Its nasty stuff to talk about but it has to be talked about bluntly if we genuinely want to be fair to new and old Canadians let alone have a country that functions and is not a play ground for some rich boy to exorcise his guilt feelings for being privileged.

Anti-Muslimism is better, although there is quite a bit of hostility to the religion of Islam as well on the Internet these days. If we want to go down that track, anti-Jewism might be the most accurate neologism to replace anti-Semitism, encompassing 'Jew hatred' and lesser hostility to Jews. Fear and hatred do often do-exist which complicates matters.

I think there is enough evidence that Jesus and Muhammed the men existed, it is what they proclaimed to be that is in question. There are many modern day people who make divine claims, we know they exist, we can go and see them or get reports on television, etc. about them. Their existence is not in doubt, it is just the claims they make that are.

Free speech is someone's right to explain herself/himself. It contains logic. Hate speech does not contain logic. Its just a previous phase of a physical attack. Free Speech: I dont like xxxxx because of ............ Hate Speech: F..ck xxxxxx, I hate xxxx, we should kill xxxx, evil xxxxx, xxxx are perverts, xxxxx are disgusting. Free speech is not something unlimited. Someone's free speech rights ends when s/he start to threaten public peace under the pretext of free speech.

If they committed fraud, they should be fined for it.

Seems there are a lot of drug companies that made many false claims about their synthetic opioids, and ended up destroying many lives. They seem to have gotten away with it.

Back it up? I guess we need to ban religion. Where's the stuff to back up the existence of god, the claim that Jesus turned water into wine, or the claim that Mohammed flew to heaven on a magic flying horse (with human face)? If a company claimed they had a magic device that turned water into wine, they would be fined for fraud.

How so? Regarding 'fictional people', you know that similar laws happen in the corporate world. I am not free to go out and make wild public claims against a corporate entity without something to back it up.

For fictional or long-since-dead people, yes. Also, I'd argue that our defamation laws go a bit too far.

So you disagree with defamation suits?

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. We should have the right to criticize this character and make claims about this character if we wish. I'm sure we agree on that (not impact though).

I think there are ample separate accounts to corroborate the story that a man did live in that part of the world and did some of the the things as suggested in the Bible. That doesn`t mean that many of the stories are not embellished, just like many of Donald Trump`s "accomplishments" are embellished.

Also, if Jesus were alive today, we could confirm if he could turn water into wine or not. And if he couldn't, then it would be much easier to stop a religion from forming around him. Unfortunately, we don't have that option. So sometimes it is helpful to use other tools, such as ridicule, to fight against the insanity of religion.

For the lulz and views. And to be my hero of course.

Why would I do it? Just to inflame others? Note that if Jesus were alive today, and I did such a thing, I might find myself in civil court defending a defamation suit. While not a criminal offence, that doesn't mean I could get away without any consequences. Defamation is a concept understood under both common law (most of Canada), and the Civil Code in Quebec under section 1457.

You will be my hero. Please do it and post it on youtube!

I think I have already pointed that out many times before. One is legal and wrong, the other is illegal and wrong.

I think there are many Christians who would be offended if I called Jesus a child molester, a homosexual, or even non-celibate. There are some indications that he could have been any of those, although none is concrete evidence just like there is no concrete evidence that he remained celibate as many Christians choose to believe. Beyond the many references to Mary Magdalene which many interpret to be his partner, there is the possibly forged Gospel of Jesus Wife, the Gospel of John has been interpreted by some to imply he had a homosexual relationship with John the Apostle, and the Gospel of Mark could suggest that Jesus had a sexual encounter with a young boy. I am not suggesting any of the above, just pointing out that if I were to walk down the street with a sign that said Jesus was a sexual pervert there are many who would take offence to that. I am no hero for doing that, I would be wrong. I am not supporting anyones freedom of speech by doing such an act.

Insulting someone personally is not the same as drawing a mythical character that is upsetting to some people for some bizarre reason. The analogy is all wrong.

Agreed...President Trump can do all that plus babysit Justin Trudeau at the same time.

As is your right, of course. However, since Motion M-103 has absolutely no bearing on free speech, other than in the minds of people who have an irrational fear of Islam, then the rally participants can accurately be referred to as Islamaphobes.

Nope. I'm saying that if someone claims to be holding a rally for some reason, but then choose a location, object, group, person or slogans that have nothing to do with their claimed reason for the rally, then few people are going to believe the rally is for the reason they claimed. They are going to believe that the choice of location, object, group, person and slogans define what the rally is about. This group said they were holding a rally in support of free speech. They held that rally at a Mosque, held signs that said nasty things about Muslims, shouted slogans that said nasty things about Muslims, blocked the entry to the Mosque; ergo, the rally was an anti-Muslim rally and not a free speech rally. But people are certainly free to claim one thing, and do another.

Since I was initially talking about what I thought was the most effective way to combat the messages of hate the protesters were giving - that people who felt differently show up with the opposite messages - I think I don't have to prove that it's "most" people in Canada. It only needs to be exactly what it was on Saturday: more lovers, less haters at any individual event. So far, that's been the case whether it's protesters screaming "ban Islam", or painting hateful grafitti on a Mosque or shooting six Muslims. But, I do believe that most people in Canada would have disagreed wth the way in which those protesters expressed their opinion, even if they also have doubts about M-103, immigration, and Muslims. But hey, you are welcome to go ahead and prove me wrong. Find a cite/source/study that specifically says "the majority of Canadians (as in more than 50%) hate Muslims".

Some people go a great degree to attribute rape with immigration equating to muslims and therefore attach that stigma with religion and therefore everyone who is a muslim. How long would it take to realise that it is not just about 'immigration', 'integration', 'multi-culturalism' or anything that we can sub consciously attribute to the religion of Islam and muslims before someone has the guts to say it like it is and call this discrimination against a whole bunch of people reardless of their backgrounds.....

Don't know and don't care. Israel doesn't hold Death to Iran rallies.

Not that so much....President Obama was a constitutional law professor but some of his executive orders and actions were still overridden by the courts or Congress. President Trump is struggling with the basic mechanics and politics of the U.S. federal government, even with his own party. POTUS is very different from CEO.

Despite endless leftist whining, Donald Trump has had a great 1st month in the presidency. Here are just a few of his accomplishments: - Put a freeze on all federal hiring outside of the Military. - Pulled support for the Obama Drive to force women to allow men in their bathrooms. - Ordered federal agencies to cut two regulations for every new one they propose. - Issued an executive order asking the DOJ And Homeland Security to withhold “Federal Funds, Except As Mandated By Law” from Sanctuary Cities. - Approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone Pipeline. - Killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. - Ordered construction of the Border Wall.

The EU is desperate for somebody to love- nearly as desperate as Trudeau is for somebody to love him. Anybody. Please. Brussels is suffering from performance anxiety on every front. The UK leaving is a massive blow to the EU. Trump is an unknown quantity, but everything signals that it won't be business as usual. The EU has long lived in fear of China, in the certainty that neither they as a group or as individual members can hope to trade straight up/compete with China. And worst of all, there is major discontent in many member countries. It is like the old lyric: 'If you can't be with the one(s) you love, love the one you're with'. Canada for Europe right now is like the person you meet late at night at the bar after a lot of beer. Leave without saying goodbye in in the cold grey dawn, and no chance of taking them home to meet Mom.

So was Bill Clinton (also impeached), but he was still invited over to the U.K.