Leaderboard

The most consistently inflammatory threads seem to be coming from a Muslim. That does not bother you, evidently.

It's a difficult situation, filled with extremes. On the one hand, you have people that blame all Muslims, and feel that we should round them up and toss them out of the country. On the other hand, you have the naieve kool-aid drinkers who actually believe that there is absolutely no difference between letting in 25,000 young Muslim men, and 25,000 Phillipinos, and they refuse to have an honest conversation about it. The fact is, a Muslim immigrant has a higher probability of committing terrorism in Canada than people of other faiths. However, the vast majority are fine. Do we punish all Muslims for the action of a few? If not, do we just accept an increased risk of terrorism as the result of an immigration policy that ignores Muslim terrorism around the world? I don't think there's an easy answer, but I do think we need to stop demonizing people that are interested in policy change to protect our borders. They are scared for themselves and their family, and that is a perfectly rational way to be feeling.

The plot thickens. http://m.torontosun.com/2017/10/20/morneaus-firm-doing-work-for-the-feds

A new poster with non-extreme and nuanced viewpoints? Excuse me while I go dunk my head in ice water to wake up.... Just joking. Welcome. I think I can agree with some innocuous policy change, especially if we have already enhanced our security processes and realize that the politics is at least as important as the substance of it.

Maybe because I was born white is my excuse for being white first? What more can I say except lucky me. No kidding, eh? You were born on earth also? Cool.

"Free speech" does not apply to private web forums.

This is my understanding, too - that Saudi Wahhabism is making definite strides in Canada and other countries where their funding is accepted by Muslim organizations and they are then obligated to abide by the wishes of the extremists funding them. And they are having definite success in establishing their extreme brand of Islam in Canada. Yet while they are busily funding and establishing extreme Islam in Canada and actively recruiting Muslims to their brand of extremism, we have Canadians who feel that we should do nothing about it, nor allow our politicians to address it:

Yet, he cares that all other religious organizations can freely indoctrinates their followers to values that are against the canadian ones. All protected under the sacred so called individual freedoms. This is a very sophisticated hypocrisy.

Ahhh! you were talking about the crucifix in the Assemblée Nationale!!! That is not the same thing. I was talking about what people wear. That is another subject. You are vicious. So regarding the crucifix at the A.N., it's a tricky one. In my opinion, we should remove it. But the point of those who would like to keep it, is that thing is a patrimonial object. Although I am no longer catholic and do not beleive in god, I admit they have a point. catholicism is part of our history and even if we have a seperation of Church and state, we do not need to erase our past. Having that thing in the A.N. does not jeopardize the mindset of the people Inside it. It is rather a matter of image than a matter of trust. We will not lose the confidence in the politicians to take the right decision, should there be a conflict between the rules of the state and the values of christianism, just because of that crucifix in the room. That is why I am tolerating it so far. But as I said, I would prefer have it moved to somewhere else. Regarding the "poor woman" in the bus that can't no longer wear a burqa or niqab... I do not care about your feelings. I care about how she must feel to think she needs to wear such thing. I care about her lack of self confidence and the power her religion has over her throu indoctrination. While the only thing you care about, is the right of that religion to control her mindset.

Where do you live, China? I live in southwestern Ontario and I never see surgical masks. The others not weekly....multiple times daily.

I guess Trump could cry on camera when the next U.S. pop star dies, but that doesn't appeal to his base.

Condenssending lying pr$ck. Naively in Canada my ass. http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/bill-morneau-will-put-his-assets-in-blind-trust

I meant the ones who refuse - do so for religious reasons. I guess I'm getting tired of accomodating bizarre and unhealthy religious beliefs, while they refuse to accomodate common sense ones.

Using Benz' analogy of the fields, both sides of this dispute were squarely in the religious field. One side felt Sunday is the religious "day of rest", the other did not. Secularism won out. Thankfully.

No, the provincial governments in the period the children were apprehended were not stepping all over the rights of indigenous children. That is a completely false narrative and picture. What happened is simply this. As a result of family dysfunction, alcohol, unemployment, lack of education, domestic abuse, isolation, and many other factors on reserves, many children were in fact in danger. The provincial social services department have a legal responsibility to rescue children that are in danger of harm. This happens in white communities all the time. I lived adjacent to a native village on an island in the 1960s where there were about 1000 natives and 800 white people. I could tell you something from personal experience which I observed but have decided it might be better to not put it on a forum. Apprehending native children is not stealing their identity; it is society carrying out it's responsibility or caring for at risk children. Not much more can be said about that. The idea that governments deprived children's culture or identity is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of understanding of what the reality was. To now give some groups 750 million dollars for allegedly taking their cultural identity from them is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a miscarriage of justice. The Chief Justice Mrs. Bev McLaughlin shows in her essay, which I am glad you took the time to read, shows that the Supreme Court (and other courts) do in fact make new laws. They claim they are interpreting the Constitution or Charter of Rights, but often there is no such subject in the Charter. For example, show me in the Charter where it mentions doctor-assisted suicide or abortion rights. It is non-existent. If you read the essay, you would have seen they make ruling, not so much on the Charter or Constitution, but on what they perceive as would be a society norm or what society would accept as a norm. That's the plain fact that I got out of her essay and is supported by rulings that have nothing in the Charter to clearly support them. You claim that women's right to vote is in the same league as some of these court rulings is ludicrous. Ruling that rescuing at risk children and depriving them of their native identity was not a crime or immoral action by social services workers. It was just natural if they were moved to a non-native home, they would not be in the same environment as natives living on reserves. No taxpayers owe anything for that and it was no offence. Millions of people immigrating to Canada are leaving their former cultures behind. They are adopting Canadian or western lifestyles and culture (hopefully; maybe not all). Nobody receives compensation or should for this. This is not depriving natives of their culture or identity. It is a fact of life in Canada. It has nothing to do with depriving rights. I fear you have a lack of experience and knowledge in the real world. I don't blame you for that. Just that you are confusing women's right to vote with court rulings that having nothing to do with any rights. Aboriginal identity is not a god-given right. We have certain rights that our western democracies have historically recognized such as the basic freedoms of speech, religion, association, and the press. Cultural identity might be something the U.N. came up with from cultural Marxists and aboriginal rights activists who are demanding land and money from the western non-native society. They have been accusing non-native society as being guilty of "cultural genocide". You should also read the Truth and Reconciliation Committees report on their recommended actions and see how ridiculous the demands they made are. Google is your friend.