Leaderboard

Because China is in the topic title? We can get into other nations for sure, but it appears the largest threat we face on this matter would be from China. If you want to slap your tinfoil hat on, there was a Chinese scientist working in a Canadian L4 lab, but was kicked out and then sent back to China along with some of the Chinese students that were with her. And how have we dealt with authoritarian regimes in the past? Not very well. Canada can't win this battle under Trudeau. He's just another one that loves to suck up to the Chinese, as it means money. Another globalist who will always treat Canada's interests as second to the world order he bows to.

Some are quite different than that, like the black Muslims in the United States. They go way back, before the Al-Quaeda BS. We all know that Mohammad Ali aka Cascius Clay was a Muslim. He was probably one of the greatest inspirations of my life as a human being. Black Islamic leaders in America were/are Elijah Mohammad and Loius Farrakhan. They may not be your favourite persons, but they don't threaten to impose Sharia on anyone nor run people over on sidewalks. These are American Muslims.

A one party state can effectively be bought with about $1.395B Cdn taxpayer dollars in the hands of the right media outlets. You can create quite the sycophant horde out of the dumbest 50% in a country when you have the media eating out of your hand. The other parties become irrelevant when the media outlets all propagate your lies, as with gun control, and lie to make fools of the opposition. I don't know what the actual cost would be in the US but the Dems seem to have paid it in full if the crowd around here is any indication.

There's no ideology being imported, there's simply universal rights being recognized universally. And what do human rights have to do with ideology? Nothing until conservatives stand in the way, hence the main source of left wing disgust.

Thanks for a well put post. I disagree with this bit. If believers cannot fathom than a genocidal god is more satanic than, Satan she is shown to be in scriptures, then they are mentally and morally deficient. You seem to think that most theists work towards enlightenment. I do not see it as the vast majority just follow culture, custom, fashions and religions that they are born into. I thank all the gods that the newer generations are not as sheepish as their immoral genocidal god loving parents. I agree but focus more on the human animal as it can express himself with words that give a lot of information on how his instincts are expressing themselves. Regards DL

Of course not, you seem more loyal to the United States & Donald Trump than your own nation, "To each its own" its an old Talmudic saying my Israeli friend uses when we argue opposite political points

Now this is the best and funniest thing I've heard in a long time lol So true!

FWIW, Australia banned travel from China just after Trump did, so they didn't get a congratulatory call from China like Trudeau did, but they have less than 4% of our covid deaths. Less than 100 as of today. Their population is 66% of what ours is, their country is 75% our size, so they are pretty close comp in terms of population density, and they have 1/25th the number of deaths compared to Canada. Did I mention that I hate Trudeau? Sometimes I feel like people don't know that, and I wake up screaming.

Stop it your scaring all the little bunneys I mean liberals they shoot to fast....he's one of those legal gun owners...

Agreed, but the worst thing that can ever happen to you is for another human being to have absolute power over you. You'd be better off vs a shark or a bear because you just die quickly. I live in a two storey house. We have an alarm. If someone breaks in and stays on the main floor, steals some TVs while the alarm is going off, the police can try to track them down, and I'll have an insurance claim to get a new TV. I'm not even going to get involved. If someone came to the top of the stairs, after they were warned, I would assume that they were there to attack my family.

And what source are you using for that tidbit....are you using the liberal talking points....How many stolen firearms are being used by criminals last year, the reason I ask is the CBC reported that the RCMP do not have those records, nor do they have any data on wpns legally purchased and then resold to criminals....please provide source. Cut off one source of supply and another will pop up, it's called supply and demand... prohibition does not effectively work, or stop the flow of any material item...look at booze, drugs,

Some common sense from Amsterdam and they are right, no need for loudspeaker to remind people to pray, there's an app for that. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/amsterdam-refuses-mosque-s-request-for-loudspeaker-call-to-prayer-1.4067260

Apparently it is a word that did not baffle, you, because you did not know it exists.

The problem here in Canada is that it seems that if someone does anything to defend themselves from some criminal trying to hurt or shoot them in their own home they could then also become and be treated like a criminal for daring to defend his home and his family. The person would be no doubt hounded by the police and the government into asking him as to whether he could have shot the criminal in the leg rather than to have killed him. It can go either way for the victim in Canada. It all depends on how zealous the police or the government want to pursue the shooting. They can make life hell if they want to blame the victim rather hen the criminal. I have seen that happen many times where the victim as gone thru hell trying to defend himself over something that should not have been done at all to the victim. Trudeau is clueless about everything he says or does. The buffoon is one big joke being played on Canada and Canadians. But it would seem that most Canadians like the joke that is being played on them, and thus as of today, Trudeau has gone up in popularity thanks to him coming out with more useless gun laws that will never stop anyone from wanting to shoot someone else. A criminal will say that if I cannot shoot the batard then I will go buy a baseball bat and go kill him/her with that baseball bat. One way or another that person is going to die. All we will get for our loss of our tax dollars is more loss of our tax dollars with more new gun laws being implemented. Pfff, says Trudeau. What's another billion tax dollars being blown here and another billion tax dollars being blown there. If it makes me look like a great hero of a leader than the blowing of more tax dollars will work just fine for me. And most Canadians will go along as usual and nod their stupid heads in agreement with the buffoon. Aw well, carry on Canada and with your silly ass and stupid ways of doing things. No one can ever say that Canada has always had smart and intelligent leaders. But Canada has had plenty of devious, crafty, sly, sneaky, corrupt, crooked and lying politicians for ages now. Just saying.

Just like the abortion debate has lost all sense of reason at both of the far ends of the spectrum, the gun debate lacks a lot of sense at both ends too. - Leftists are correct - a 30 round mag is not necessary, especially in Canada where armed militias aren't a part of the constitution. They haven't been for a long time though (if they ever were) and this round of legislation had nothing to do with that. - Leftists are correct that assault weapons should be illegal, and they already were, long before last Friday. Leftists never thought about the fact that when criminals know that people may or may not have guns in their homes, it makes them less likely to commit home invasions. If there were no guns in Canada then home invasion would be a huge problem. Basically any dude over 250 lbs with reasonable low body fat could go home to home with impunity, armed with just a bat. There are a lot of homes with just seniors, or just a woman and her kids, or a small guy from accounting who can't bench 100 lbs.... The fact that there are 10M homes in Canada with guns in them is a HUUUUUGE deterrent to home invasions.... far more than police. People never shoot home invaders here either. It's never necessary. No one ever wants to get into a gunfight so that they can steal or protect a tv. - Gun owners are right: the NS shooter had absolutely nothing to do with gun control laws. - Gun owners are right: legally-owned guns are an extremely low risk to Canadians, probably 20th on the chart of murder weapons. - Gun owners are right: there are lots of ways to kill a bunch of people, and truck attacks and bomb attacks have had far higher body counts than guns. Trudeau doesn't have a clue wtf is going on. He's just pandering to the group of people who were brainwashed by American propagandists (who probably have a far more reasonable case than our anti-gun crowd does).

Thats not what I see, but i'm not you.....and i'm sorry if my tone came across that way, thats was not my point , which was do some research and find out for yourself that this campaign is not worth the effort, or funding it is going to consume....for the very small outcome it will have on the problem...you've as much as said so yourself, there are better ways to accomplish the goals set by the government you just don't want to see it, or afraid the right may be right this one time... How is it going to make it harder for criminals to obtain....let me ask you this as any prohibition every worked and did it make it harder for criminals to get booze, drugs and now guns...come on, your smarter than that right ? and if you can't see that explain it to me , perhaps I'm the one that is slow... Not everyone that wants to keep these fire arms in the hands of law abiding Canadians are the tropes you think they are, both sides of this issues has it's wing nuts.... And it's not OK to disagree on this subject, one of the main reasons most Canadians have these opinions is they are lacking in education on our current fire arms practices, and policies...and the government is taking advantage of that, my concern is where does it stop, sure today it is 1500 firearms, tommorrow there may be more, lets remember this was done over night and did not require debate in parliament.... Your explanation for getting rid of someone's hobby, sport , or recreation is feelings...which are not based on any facts, or for that matter reason...you've made up your mind this has nothing to do with you, so screw it... So let me ask you what your opinion is going to be when another party overturns this new laws ? are you going to have the same laxy dazy attitude or are you going to be concern, or upset ? And what your opinion of spending those Bils buying back these fire arms? And what concerns me more about this topic is it could be any material thing that they have banned, without debate, or much research....and why does it have to be covered in lies to sell to the public?

The Sun chain tries for a blue collar attitude in keeping with the thought it was being read by people on the bus and at their lunch tables at work. It is aimed more at men than women, but on most social issues it remains fairly liberal. Certainly it favours abortion rights and gay rights. The Star has its progressive agenda set in stone in its founding documents.

The UN, while important, has too many kill switches built into it by the permanent Security Council members, who seldom have unanimous agreement. I think the only way to prevent human rights abuses and massive trade imbalances is to attach conditions on labour standards, the environment, and human rights to trade agreements, which could consist of free trade among a massive block of states that agree to abide by these minimum standards. States that wish to trade with member states of this block either have to comply to enjoy free trade or face a sliding scale of penalties/limitations on trade depending on the level of compliance. Such a block would have nothing to do with the UN, as the UN represents countries with a wide range of standards and opposing ideological viewpoints. Full member states of such a trading block would have to maintain a certain minimum level of democracy and rights/freedoms. Money is a great motivator. Such a block would also enjoy great security, as it could also be a defensive military alliance. Eventually the success of such a block would likely have a transformative impact on the UN and its agencies like the WTO and WHO, because success breeds success. It’s certainly the only realistic way to counter abuses of countries like China and Russia. It also keeps the door open to those countries and other countries with sketchy histories to be better and enjoy better quality of life. Meet the standards and enjoy the full benefits of membership. China would have to improve its wages and standards for labour and the environment, which would reduce the trade imbalance with western countries but also raise living standards and improve stability and democracy for the Chinese. It’s also a further protection from dictatorship everywhere.

99% of Canadians don't like killing babies. That doesn't mean that 99% of Canadians are against abortion. Get it? 80% of Canadians want assault weapons banned. Good news! Assault weapons have been banned since before I was born, and I'm over 50. The "poll" that you linked to was irrelevant. No country sends their soldiers to war with semi-auto .556s with 7-round magazines. Not even one. Those aren't "military-grade assault rifles" any more than my Nissan is a military-grade assault vehicle.

Everything China has exhibited to the world shows it as being far more vicious and brutal to its own people than the US has ever dreamed of doing. Further, while the US once threw its weight around more freely throughout the world, particularly in the third world, they were restrained by a free press and democratic values. Their actions abroad were subject to being reported back home, making the voters unhappy and giving ammunition to the other party. China faces no such restraint. It has total control over its media and no opposition politicians. It can threaten, bully and overthrow local governments all its wants without hesitation. Which is probably part of the reason why they're building a bunch of aircraft carriers, to project their military strength abroad. It is already bribing government leaders into signing on for government loans which can't be paid back, then seizing ports and airports in those countries as recompense. And a government willing to roll tanks over its own students is not going to be the least bit restrained in doing it to other nations and their people.

I defer to all Godess's comments. I believe how women should be dressed is an issue for them to decide as individuals. As a man I will dress the way I want. I do not go about naked out of a basic decency for my fellow homo sapiens who do not need such a sight. On that note it is absurd for Maroc to call anyone racist and then exhibit intolerance to others and perpetuate concepts based on sexual identity needing to be repressed with attire. Thank you I do not need a burkha to help me control my penis Maroc. Some of us have evolved past that.

Actually you and @QuebecOverCanada and @Michael Hardner and @New World Disorder all can stand a lesson in USA, politics, considering there are four (4) parties [Repubs, Independents, Greens, and Dems] by which it should only be three if the Dems are deservedly banned. Get properly informed about the USA, fellas The fact that you all are okay with the effort to continually impeach a President because you dislike him for how he LEGALLY & LAWFULLY does his job is the true sign of you yourself being a Totalitarian here.

Someone or a group does something that I find not good.... WE MUST ELIMINATE.

You are a troll

The petition makes an interesting point: What about our veterans who served in the Middle East and heard this call everyday? It is perpetuating their own PTSD symptoms. With a high alert of mental health issues due to the Covid-19 outbreak, many people have been experiencing increased mental health issues like our veterans who fought in the Middle East wars. Do you have any sympathy for the Canadian Veterans and their families who lost loved ones? I've seen this point in regard to other groups as well - I mentioned those who have fled Islamic persecution, only to find themselves having to listen to Allahu Akbar loudspeaker'ed through their neighbourhood 5 times a day. As the above article pointed out - these are usually the last words victims of Islamic terrorism hear, which is unsettling to many. Again, these points will mean nothing to those who place more importance on the religious rights of Muslims, than the rights of those who have been persecuted and killed in the name of Islam.

Another point lost on ones who advocate FOR the Islamic call to prayer in the name of pluralism and religious tolerance is the history of the Islamic call to prayer - the Islamic call to prayer was INVENTED by Mohammed TO BE DISTINCT FROM OTHER RELIGIONS AND TO SEPARATE ISLAM FROM THEM. He wanted to use a human voice to do this BECAUSE it was different from the Jewish ram's horn (which is only blown at certain times of the year, not at all hours of the day) and the Christian bells (which also provided a non-religious function for the population - time signaling.) Those who argue they are all the same, choose to ignore this history.

I think this issue is much more multi-faceted and should not just be boiled down to "noise ordinances". Church bells can be just as annoying to some people, as the call to prayer is to others. The difference I see is that the bells are musical and contain no words - the purpose is not to proselytize. ( I live next door to a church, the bells chime the time, which is sometimes helpful and also let people know when there is a wedding or funeral, which helps people to know they need to allow extra parking around the church at that time. The exception is possibly the bells to begin services on Sunday mornings, but those have not been chimed since the recent covid-19 pandemic. I'm not sure why they made the decision to omit the bells at this time, but they did.) The call to prayer is actual words and I think that's an importance difference. Words have meaning. "Adhan" in Arabic means " information, enlightenment", so it's more than just a time signal. The purpose of the call to prayer is also different - another important thing to consider and I defer to Islamic scholars themselves, as to the purpose of the Islamic call to prayer: Allahu-Akbar is a statement of Islamic supremacy. The “Omdat Al-Ahkam”, an important book for Islamic law, has this to say about the Adhan: In “A summary of Islamic Jurisprudence” by Fawzan, we read: Moulana Ihtishamul Hasan Sahib Kandhelwi writes: In another article he says: Shah Waliullah (Rahimahullah) writes: Note what has been said: the Adhan proclaims, confirms and manifests (makes real) Islam across the Country, it expresses creed and faith. It also states that Allah and the Muslims are supreme and that areas in which the Adhan is heard belong to the “house of Islam” – i.e. are Muslim owned areas. In other words the Adhan is a credal statement that proclaims Islamic and hence Muslim supremacy as well as Muslim ownership of the land in which it is heard. (No wonder some Muslims in western enclaves where the Adhan is heard – publicly or not – consider Islamic law above the law of the land and no wonder such areas are no-go areas for the arms of the [kaffir] government.) It is worth remembering that in Muslim Countries Churches and temples have to ring bells, sound horns etc. in a quiet manage so as to not disturb the tranquillity of the Muslims and Church and Temple buildings have to be lower in height than the mosques to show the ‘inferiority’ of these kaffir religions. For similar reasons in many Muslim Countries non-Muslims have the greatest difficulty in getting permission to build or even repair their religious buildings, this with the aim of making non-Islamic religions disappear from the public sphere. http://www.faithfreedom.org/church-bells-and-the-muslims-adhan/ Before I am accused of "racism" and "islamophobia", (which is sure to happen anyways) the article points this out: ......and it is these orthodox Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims and THEIR views which are causing so much trouble in the world, so I think it's only prudent to consider how THEY view such things. Also, for educated non-Muslims - hearing "Allahu Akhbar" broadcast 30 times a day can be quite unsettling. You can't argue (in good faith, at least) that these words are not a statement of Islamic supremacy. Is it unsettling to non-Muslims because they are all "racists" and Islamophobes"? Or is it because of a well-deserved reputation for violence that Islam has cultivated? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. There are quite a few comments in news articles about this issue from non-Muslims who previously lived in Islamic-ruled countries and who have fled the persecution there - about how frightening it is to hear the words of this "call to prayer". Not everyone here will give a rip about THEIR feelings, but I think that also needs to be taken into account, especially when it's a religion that is known for violence, persecution and killing in the name of its "god".

People do deserve the right to worship their god, but it should be done with minimum inconvenience to everyone else. That too is part of cooperating in a so-called multi culltural society. So just like there are zoning laws for everything, you cannot run a car garage in a residential area. You can't have sports events where whistles are blowing and loudspeakers blaring next to a residential area. City ordinances do allow variance for special events that might be once a month or something. Those specify dates and have time limits. I expect those same rules to apply to everyone equally. Is that unfair?

Maybe it's all about how liberal make there decisions based on lies, Bring something to the table some source, anything that will prove this liberal decision will severely reduce criminals ability to gain access to fire arms...