Leaderboard

Wrong. "Security risk" means anyone with their face covered in public. You glossed over that point before - just like motorcycle helmets and balaclavas are not allowed in certain areas. Security risk. I think it's natural to fear security risks. Yes. We dislike niqabs. They are the antithesis of everything we believe in. Or do you not agree with that? You are suggesting that we learn to love niqabs and think they're great and if we don't like them, then the problem is with US?? What is wrong with disliking niqabs? Tell us what you like about them, so we can all love them like you do. But again, my point was there IS a security risk in niqabs (You insist there is NO security risk) and it is not just "fear of women in veils" as you suggest. And it's more than dislike of them. There is no demonstrable value to society in niqabs. In fact, they are bad for society, as we can all see from 57 Muslim majority countries and their appalling record of women's rights.

That's horse shit, anyone that does security for a living will tell you to be able to see a face is a must...... to a) compare it to ID, or to read the face to see if it is nervous or the person is lying about something or small tell tale facial expressions one need to see the entire face.....However todays leftists have made it so difficult to do this it is actually funny…. Much like getting a PAL or firearms certificate , all that a muslim women is required to do is show up with a face covering get a photo done and poof she can now purchase a fire arm, now how in the blazing blue balls is the guy behind the counter of any fire arm store able to tell that this one PAL is not being misused by another veiled women.....It scares me, anyone can do this....not just Muslim women but anyone....How secure is that..... How many terrorist attacks in Quebec where they have been pushing this type of law for years...wait a minute one a white guy walks into a mosque and shoots Muslims….whoops...WTF but you just said it puts people at more risk....i'm confused …..as you said show me the evidence that states other wise that we are at more risk banning an item that stands for hatred, oppression of women, Why don't we ask immigrants right at the point of the interview....these are items that Canadians find offensive, would you consider not doing them....things like treating women as processions, making them wear a burka, or head scarf, gentile mutilation, arranged marriages, marriages to under aged children.....the list goes on....and when they reply with answers what would be wrong with "after careful consideration we have declined your request for the following reason, perhaps you would find another country a better fit....to Racist , did I cross some liberal line , was it insulting, what is wrong with it...The answer to the question is a choose, nobody is forcing them to immigrate here, that's a choice, it is also a choice we make to outline what is acceptable here and what is not....those that do not agree have made a choice not to conform or adapt Again it is not about wearing an item, it is what it stands for in this country.....it stands for oppression , it stands for minimizing basic human rights, it stands for hatred and a lot of other things...you say you for not forcing them to wear these things, and yet their very religion forces them, their very culture forces them, their men force them,

There are no laws that state a Muslim women must show their faces to be provided a service, at any federal branch office, for instance getting a PAL or firearms certificate , a Muslim women can obtain one, without once showing her face or providing a photo without a face covering, same goers with purchasing a firearm, with a pal photo of a face covering, ya I had to goggle that shit as well ...........So if the federal office can not force a Muslim women to unmask, how far do you think a bank will get be refusing to service her....the security issue has been busted, same as the motorcycle helmet ruling in BC, Sikhs are no long required to wear a helmet , because of religious reasons...the safety reasons are now trumped by religion.... It is not about disliking an item of clothing....it is about what it represents, "oppression of women" in most 3 rd world countries, and countries where the Muslim faith is dominant , just like female gentile mutilation is against the law in Canada regardless if it is tradition in other countries....or are we only allowed to have a limited number of things we think are oppressive in Canada. or am I being racist once again....

Well, if the goal of Canada's bizarrely large immigration program is integration, perhaps we'll have no choice but to assert an integrative imperative. I wonder how many of the women who wear the accoutrements of religious fundamentalism are gainfully employed? I believe that to encourage such self-othering behavior is to encourage ongoing social and economic division. Many will eventually say something to the effect that 'they can wear whatever nonsense they want but don't expect us to subsidize them'. We have to be sensible. As my mother, who was an immigrant, used to say about adapting to Canadian norms, including the ones she didn't like, "When in Rome...."

Canada wants America's attention and support as well.....part of the same club. Go find another superpower to hide behind if you don't like it.

Army Guy: Our traditional parties, and especially the Libs and NDP, have worked hard to demonize those who raise valid concerns about immigration, particularly where the costs to taxpayers related to our current policies are concerned. By some estimates, the government's policy of allowing an annual intake of 20,000 foreign grannies and grandpas, who've never paid taxes in Canada, adds an 4 to 5 billion dollars annually to health care costs, half of this amount being borne by already stressed Ontario taxpayers as health care costs for sponsored immigrants are funded by provincial treasuries. As a person who's experienced the dismal state of Ontario's current health care rationing scheme, this alarms me greatly. But we're not allowed to talk about it, because, well, to refuse to suffer in silence is apparently racist.

I don't understand this. Why does the guy have to have some kind of "official" ties to ISIS to prove he was working for them? ISIS sent out a call to all it's followers to attack and in particular to attack Canada. This guy frequented their websites and responded to the call by conducting an attack. How is it not terrorism?

Roll your eyes all you want. It is a security issue. I know you'd love for it to be only about fear and dislike. But as Sapper dude pointed out, it's a symptom of a bigger problem, it's not racism or islamophobia on the part of Westerners. It's a societal view that is the antithesis of everything we stand for. You will also get a fine if you don't wear your seatbelt or smoke in a public place. Sometimes stupidity needs to be regulated. Or maybe, just maybe.....it's time for Muslim wants, desires and preferences to take the backseat to Western wants, desires and preferences and do some bending of its own instead of Westerners constantly having to bow and bend to what Muslims want.

You seem to be the perfect profile for someone who reads Martin Regg Cohn's columns. He's The Star's attack dog against all things Conservative. Look, I'm not a fan of Ford's personality but remember what the voters said. By giving the Liberals only 7 - count 'em - seven seats, the electorate sent a crystal clear message. Do you really think she governed for all 13 million people - by the way - probably only 6 million voters (Cohn has a habit of misrepresenting things)? They said - enough already - lets get back to basics. Ford has some very capable people to lean on. Let's give them all a chance - at least as much as was given to Kathleen Wynne who went ahead and privatized Hydro without having it in her platform - or Trudeau who lied about so many things, modest deficits and balanced budgets being a huge one. Why not pack away your outrage for a while........

Since our new member Sophia spammed this right off the status section I'll re post it. It is more relevant than her rantings after all. I guess Justin will be hitting the bong pretty hard after this. Finally, a Liberal with a conscience does the right thing for Canada and Canadians. Hopefully this will just be the start. https://torontosun.com/news/national/liberal-mp-leona-alleslev-slams-trudeau-crosses-floor-to-tories?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1537206191

BREAKING NEWS: Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been accused of sexually assaulting a young gentleman in 1868. She will be suspended from the bench until the FBI and CIA investigate.

Banning burkas is a difficult issue I think. In the most basic sense, yes, people should be free to wear anything they want, and the government shouldn't interfere. On the other hand, the burka is associated with the oppression of women and their deprivation of rights and freedoms by a misogynistic culture. By banning the burka, on the one hand, you interfere with the freedom of those people who genuinely want to wear it of their own choice, but you increase the freedom of those who would otherwise be forced to wear it. It is tempting to take the libertarian stance that the government should infringe on freedoms as little as possible, period, regardless of the context. But if infringing on the freedom of garment choice for some individuals who might genuinely want to wear it vastly increases the freedom from abuse and oppression for many other individuals, there's a strong argument for that to be considered.

Good point. I think we do need a national debate on that: do we maintain the welfare state or open up to more immigration: Can't have both!

Bernier is not actually an isolationist on immigration. My understanding is that he believes immigration levels and rules need to be adjusted to suit the needs and interests of the Canadian economy. Too many immigrants perform poorly upon arriving in Canada and too often continue to do so for quite some time, becoming an ongoing drain on public resources. Economically, of course, Bernier's views tilt toward libertarianism, or government non-interference in the economy. But as the famous libertarian economist Milton Friedman once noted, open immigration cannot realistically co-exist with a welfare state model. Bernier's party, if it comes to power, will have to pull back on immigration and work to curb the welfare state before easing up on immigration policy. It's the only rational and fair solution.

You should answer that question. Because Harris is responsible when a municipality gives the job of monitoring water to the drunken brother in law of a politician. Saving money, and thus lowering taxes is why people vote conservative. People vote for the NDP because they want them to raise taxes (but not on them) and give them free stuff.

Immigrant song by Led Zep. Fitting somehow?

Liberals and socialists are the radical fanatical fascists that have pretty much ruined Canada and all Canadians lives. Those two alone have pretty much bankrupted this country with all of their liberal and socialist programs and agendas that the majority of Canadians never asked for. Bull chit. Our taxes are not low at all. We pay plenty of taxes to help keep going all the radical changes that those leftist liberals and socialists have heaped on the taxpayer's of Canada for several decades now. Canadians are being robbed every day of their hard earnings by our politicians who only have and always will show contempt for we the people and their constant wasting of our tax dollars. Liberalism and socialism is not for free.

I don't know - 2020 or 2030, somewhere back then.

He said he wants to lower it back to 250,000 per year.

It's the perfect time the start a new party. All of Canada's trade with the US is about to get destroyed and the only way to pursue free trade is to vote in a Bernier government 2019. Trudeau and Scheer are too in bed with the dairy cartel to support what is in the national interest.

Trudeau could still slide up the middle if there are two conservative party's fighting it out in the next election. This does not look good at all. The thought of another four years of Trudeau scares the chit out of me.

Doug Ford has fooled many people. In spite of the fact that he has no real understanding of what a respected leader looks like, which he has demonstrated amply since being elected. In fact, he has no real experience as a leader of any kind, but does have a horrific reputation among many seasoned and knowledegable people in business and politics (including some of his own current cabinet members) and is working very hard so to alienate millions - and he is succeeding! As Martin Regg Cohn states in the Toronto Star, "Is he not now premier of all 13 million Ontarians — not merely those who cast ballots from his besotted base, or voters who held their noses? Is he merely leader of Ford Nation, or premier of our province?" Of 13 million Ontarians, only a franction of that actually voted for this guy, and one can see from the protests at Queen's Park that citizens do recognize that our very democracy is being seriously undermined by his self-serving "payback", if you will, to Toronto councillors - most of whom saw him in action as the obnoxious bully he is during his years as councillor - and the mayor - who beat him out for the job. And what is he doing pushing through legislation in the middle of the night - "stealing democracy" as one protester put it, while the city sleeps? What a waste of time and money this whole circus of ford "governing" has already become. He is on a slippery slope and will meet with nothing but pushback for the next 4 years - especially if his obsession with Toronto continues. Anyone who supports his use of the notwithstanding clause must seriously question their own understanding of what this really means. His actions are a frightening admission of how little he knows about law, protection of civil rights and respectable civil discourse. Wake up people. For all of us.