poochy

Yep, of course that's what it is, anyway, attempting to shut down the discussion with the same old nonsense isn't surprising to any of us. I know it isn't fashionable to say this, you can call yourself any damned thing you like but it means nothing if you can't defend yourself with reason. in other words, if you hold stupid opinions, you mght jsut be stupid. Of course this subject only came up because one poster demanded more women, while never once explaining why their weren't already exactly the number of women that there should be, as decided by, women Apparently the absolute freedom that women have to find and sign up to this forum isn't enough, while at the same time that freedom is somehow comparable to a culture that convinces them that covering their faces is necessary. What a joke.

Not worth the electrons it was transmitted with.

That's the liberals, standing for everything and nothing all at once.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/24/woman-fighting-citizenship-oath-niqab-ban-favours-gender-segregation-but-not-in-canada/ "During cross-examination, Negar Hashemi, the government’s lawyer, asked Ms. Ishaq why she preferred to live in Canada, rather than Pakistan, “a country with Islamic laws that includes your religious views.” The woman replied she considered Pakistan a Muslim country, but not an Islamic one, because it was “not obeying the laws in, like, whatever Islam has told us to do.” Males and females, for instance, are not educated in separate classrooms, she said. “They are not following this rule back home … it’s been co-education.” She added there are “a lot of … fields” in the workplace where there could be a separation of genders, “but there is no separation.” Asked by Ms. Hashemi whether she would like to see men and women separate during Canada’s citizenship ceremonies, Ms. Ishaq said such a move would “definitely give me something more than I asked” and her main objective was being allowed to keep her face covered while saying the oath. “But if after that they can do for me some separation, it’s more than — yes, I do appreciate for this, too.” On Tuesday, she said if the niqab ban were lifted, there would be no need for such an accommodation." So Pakistan isn't Islamic enough for her, and if given the option she would like Canada to become more Islamic, which isn't likely to happen, but, if this woman and the niqab represents this sort of attitude we don't need it or her in this country. Lamenting co-education? Or as we call it, normal? Being blind to her own oppression is not an excuse or a good reason for us to import more of it into a place where we find it unacceptable. As many of us have been saying and now reinforced by her own words.

Her posts are reflexive and most people here don't understand what they stand for.

Such an empty argument, and it all goes back to the infallible charter, you and the others of your mind are all so convinced in its perfection, yet deny that it was written by people, who could not have anticipated ever situation, nor were they necessarily correct in every thing they wrote. Again, this is a non argument, we don't behead people, we dont stone them, we don't prevent women from working, or driving, we don't separate them from men at meals, or during menstruation. We draw lines, honor killings, also not acceptable. If the charter supports the protection of the oppression of women in our society (which it doesn't) it should be torn up. Also, your last sentence once again proves that you aren't a serious person. Our society does not need to conform to a charter of rights and freedms, it should conform to our beleifs, arguing that we must do something simply to meet it's demands when most of our society disagrees is simply backwards. There are imposed societal limits to all things, including religion.

So tell us then, you, the all knowing, what are the real values of the variables you mention, you seem to be in the know, perhaps you work for CSIS and are privy to information concerning all of the people they watch and those they have arrested. Not a single one of you answers that question. Or perhaps, like the rest of us you don't really know anything, but your incredible bias leads you around by the nose into the ever so intelligent opinion that you dislike conservatives, therefore no new laws are required. None of us know if new laws, C-51, or anything else is required, but only people like you are so self assured in your own ignorance and arrogance to presume to know that we don't. In other words, your incredibly full of shit, not that telling you matters, by your very nature you are incapable of the introspection that would be required to logically consider you own opinion and discard it for the nonsense that it is. Don't worry though, you are in the right place to find sympathetic ears.

Why is it so difficult fore some of you to understand that there are no such thing as rights beyond those that we wish to give ourselves. There is no higher power, the charter is not our god, nor was it handed down to us by one, it was written by people, and can be and is fallible. Those failings include protecting the supposed rights of someone to behave in a way that is opposed to the way that we allegedly want to live, free and equal. Im not against the charter, but some seem to be arguing from the pov that, 'well, the charter says so', which is an incredibly limited way of looking at things. The charter shouldn't exist to tell us how we should think, it should be a reflection of how we do think, good or bad, the country does not belong solely to those who look at every situation through a distorted progressive lens. It is simply not reasonable to think that it is always the correct path to walk.

Yea, and if their religion demanded they perform acts that are against the values of the vast majority of us we wouldn't allow it, regardless of their supposed rights, so it's neither here nor there.

Well it's nice of the charter to protect actions that the vast majority of us don't agree with, so I suppose we really do exist to serve the charter, thank goodness for those of you who defend the charters right to put the rest of us in our place.

Of course your entire premise that it's a fashion is the real joke here, how many non muslim women engage in this fashion? When has the oppresion of women in western society become fashionable?

So, do we exist to serve the constitution, or is it the other way around?

I almost beleive that you don't know it when it happens, but you go back to that same posting pattern every time you do, i doubt that is a coincidence or that even you are that obtuse.

The same ad hominem every time you lose an argument, and because your entire belief system is a logical fallacy, it happens often.

Yes, absolutely, it's all this poster knows, the facts are laid bare for all to see, this doesnt mean there isnt forces that create conditions for these high rates of homicides, but it is undeniable that this isn't some unknown that requires more study.

All things that have been happening since well, forever, and have not accelerated to any large degree.

That would be true, were it actually happening. In any case not being able to mention climate change is ridiculous. Of course, when or if we see the 'catastrophic effects' of agw few place will be more affected than Florida.

Are you using words that you don't understand? You want more women, having them join by finding the forum like everyone else, through their own desire to find a politics forum like the rest of us, and we are all equally capable, isn't enough for you. Creating other conditions that are a greater attractant to women, is, by definition, artificial. It is a politics forum, where, people talk about politics, people join for that reason, you want to create new reasons for people to join who otherwise wouldn't. You are trying to solve a 'problem' that does not exist.

Yes, and the left defends almost anything from a culture that oppresses women, gays, and well, you name it. That moral high ground you think you're standing on is a swamp and you're quickly sinking into it. How many women not of that religion choose to wear a Niqab? Right, so tell us again that it isn't a part of the religion that tells them to sit at the back of the room when menstruating, or not allow them to eat with men, etc etc etc. It's really people like you who don't know what they stand for, the left wing schism rears it's ugly head once again. But good job defending that oppression while bleieving in your heroic status as the defenders of rights and freedoms, it's always impressive.

Well it's a nice myth, maybe it is true.

Which are the issues that aren't already talked about and understood? Which of those are actually solvable, here, in the real world? O, and of those, which of them are based upon some level of myth but still perpetuated as fact by some in effort to gain an advantage of some sort. For example, can we admit that not only are women far outpacing men when it comes to enrolement in university, and doing better in the job market than men, and if so can we ask that commercials about all of these poor little girls who need to be given a leg up to over come how difficult their lives are, be removed from the air? Can we also talk about the wage gap myth, not that it doesn't exist, but that it is much less than is always suggested and by and large exists because women choose to have children and tend to workd less hard than thier male counter parts. I suppose not How about domestic violence perpetuated by women, what should women do about that problem? I will not dispute that there are still issues that more affect women than men, some of them quite horrible, but things in some areas have definetly improved, we can't fix everyhting or completely change our nature.

Yes, actually, that's exactly what she is asking for. Do you honestly believe that you are the only intelligent person in the room? Of course you do.

Your reading comprehension is quite poor, btw, how are the three bears? That's right, perfectly reasonable people now believe that they will be arrested for speaking badly of pipelines, that is a perfectly normal thought. But you have said often that you don't perceive any new risk that requires any new laws, and while this new law might be bad in some ways, to believe there is no new or higher risk considering recent events is...unimaginable, to put it politely. We need more bodies to convince you, yet we are the ones supporting evil.

How many of those deaths and prevented attacks have happened in the last few years? But hey, lets ignore that trend, and lets focus on the alleged equal number of white supremacist attacks that no one knows about, sorry, but this thread is just another pathetic attempt to deflect away from what is real. And as I have stated more than once Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are required, but you hate the conservatives, and your ideological bent seems to overide everything, so you assume that this new law is wrong, you assume it is unnesescary. You assume those things in the face of not knowing what the next threat might be, or how many people might be killed, you presume with peoples lives. The rest of us assume that we don't know what needs to be done, and we assume that our government isn't evil and actually wants to prevent attacks that might kill people. But hey i know, we're evil, if only we listened to more Joni we wouldnt want to take away all your rights.

Assuming that at least some of the prevented attacks were real, say the train plot, if that had happened and 20 people were killed, would you change your mind? You and the rest constantly presume that no significant attack could or will occur, significant for you anyway, so what is your body count threshold? Derailed trains can and have killed many people, so if we do nothing and then something significant ( whatever that means to you) happens, would it even matter to you? Or would you be satisfied that you did the right thing for your version of your rights, always believing that more laws wouldn't have helped, that all of our laws are already juuuust right. Well Goldilocks, you don't know what laws are needed, and you don't get to decide that it's ok to put up with X deaths (your body count threshold - if that exists) in order to satisfy your personal sensibilities. The fallacy that the rest of us are just EVER SO SCARED is entirely pathetic, and speak volumes about the kind of person and people you all are. Sorry to disappoint you, but im not losing any sleep over this, the odds of me personally being affected by any attack is quite small, as has been mentioned before, being struck by lightning is fortunately a higher risk, i dont worry much about that either, but I also don't fly fish in a thunderstorm. Of course some of you are also AFRAID we are and have been ruled by a fascist dictator for years, of course that is nonsense, but frightened people will say many crazy things. I dont know what laws we need, but there have been attacks, there have been others stopped, if we might be able to stop more without completely altering our lifestyle, we probably should, maybe this is the wrong law, maybe you are completely right about this law, but you go further than that, the threat is blown out of proportion. Well lets hope you are right about that too, but again, is there any point at which you would admit you were wrong, and number of bodies? It doesn't seem like it. Ideology first, reality second, o but the white supremacists...and we ask where.