JerrySeinfeld

Here is the link http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/newsup...09&zoneid=4 The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported. Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist. Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion. "He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts." "I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community." "I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'" Gay man rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, "It is disturbing that some British imams are endorsing the execution of gay and lesbian Muslims. "Imam Arshad Misbahi's homophobic attitudes give comfort and succor to queer-bashers. They encourage conflict and disharmony between Manchester's large gay and Muslim communities. "Muslim and gay people know the pain of prejudice and discrimination. We should be working together to challenge homophobia and Islamophobia. I hope liberal Muslims will speak out in defense of the human rights of lesbians and gay men," said Tatchell. Adnan Ali, founder of the British branch of al-Fatiha, an organisation for gay and lesbian Muslims, told Gay.com that "a person with such an obsession about execution of human beings is not even entitled to be addressed as Imam." "Islam is a very tolerant religion and celebrates the human diversity in its core message," Ali said. "The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality. What surprises is this obsession of the Islamic clerics to killing and execution. Why? What about dialogue? Discussion? "Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over."

Um...no. Anarchy and civil unrest is a problem, obviously. But it's a pretty big leap to go from there to the idea that France is on the verge of collapse and an even bigger leap to suggest Europe itself is on the ropes. (I find right-wingers here to be very strange creatures: on the one hand, they can happily argue that Iraq and Afghanistan are doing just fine, thanks, despite windespread instability and daily desth tolls in the double or triple digits. Yet a few Citroëns get torched in the Paris slums and its the end of freaking civilization as we know it. Weird.) Hmmm, I don't think anyone has suggested everything is fine in Iraq, right wing or otherwise, and it is more than a few cars being torched. I don't think France is on the verge of collapse, yet, but they are definitly having a problem getting things under control http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200610...03453-5327r.htm .....These are not empty threats. An average of 14 policemen a day are injured in bloody clashes with jobless youths. France's Interior Ministry said 2,500 police officers had been "wounded" this year. The head of the hard-line trade union "Action Police" Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as "intifada." Police cruisers are pelted daily with stones and "Molotov cocktails" (gasoline-filled bottles with burning wicks that explode on impact) and Mr. Thooris said cops assigned to what was rapidly degenerating into "free fire zones" should be protected in armored vehicles. Entire tall buildings empty into the streets to chase police and free an arrested comrade. "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," Mr. Thooris told journalists. Mr. Sarkozy, the leading center-right candidate for next year's presidential election, responded by dispatching cops in body armor, equipped with automatic weapons and rubber bullets, stun and teargas grenades into several Paris suburbs with orders to "restore control" from "organized crime." In one recent clash 250 cops dispersed a 100-strong Muslim gang armed with baseball bats. You might get a kick out of this one: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1609 The Rape of Europe From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-10-25 20:57 The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.” Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.” Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic. Just consider the demographics. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities. Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”............. is she right? Are all of these reports baseless, simply 'Islamaphobia' are people just making this up ? No - this shit is really happening. Next time you meet someone who is visting from Europe (I see an talk with them all the time - I live in once of Canada's most popular touristy cities), just buy them a beer and ask them a simple question: "So I hear alot about muslims and Europe. What can you tell me about your experience?" I've had this conversation with a number of European tourists and the one common thread is this: They speak with a lot less "trepidation" about the "problem" than we do here. They talk straight about it because it's a very prevalent issue over there.

I'm not sure that the combustion engine does have many substitutes. After all, if I wanted to buy a battery operated vehicle or fuel cell powered vehicle, where would I get that? These are theoretical alternatives right now, not practical ones. So even if I was not willing to pay the current price for gas, I'm not sure what realistic alternatives I have for travelling in areas without public transportation - and even then there are limits to what you can do with public transportation. Be patient. The article we're discussing is talking about years and years down the road the death of the suburb...not the day after tommorrow - and so am I. Things happen gradually, not all at once. Trust me - there are substitutes which will come into play more and more as prices and consumer demand begins to shift. There is life after oil and we will get there when we need to get there.

What limits? I read the story about the big bad media and the control they have. But I keep hearing that song So much for media control

The chicks have done quite well by their "plight". They probably can't believe their luck, simply because someone makes a comment about the Iraq war somewhere in Ireland. WHat's the saying? "Just make sure they spell the name correctly."

The combustion engine already has many substitutes. But people are still willing to pay the current price for gasoline. If or when gasoline gets to expensive, we'll start maknig the shift to substitutes like battery operated vehicles or fuel cells. Until then life is good. And when we switch, life will go on. Damn! We all know how much lefties, social engineers and environmentalists hate the sound of good news

What a joke. When will these retards learn the lesson the Libs learned decades ago: In CANADA you campaign from the left and govern from the right.

This is similar to the argument that those employed by the government to perform civil marriages should not be able to refuse to perform same-sex civil marriages. They were hired by the government to do that job; if they disagree with the policy then they should protest in their off-hours. There is one difference though. In the same-sex marriage case the government has clearly said that all same-sex marriages should be recognized. In the Canada Post case, the material that the postal workers are objecting to has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. So if a postal worker sees something that they think is objectionable I don't have a problem with them saying "I won't deliver this until I hear that Canada Post has officially sanctioned this and finds it acceptable to deliver." However, as soon as Canada Post says that it is acceptable, they should deliver the material. And are free to protest in their off-hours. I'm positive there is already that mechanism in place. If someone printed a stack of flyers reading "f*ck the jews" i don't think it would make it's way into the postal bags and trucks. So obviously there is some sort of approval process. Again, this is about who is being silenced. I ask you this: if there was a flyer for the gay pride parade ready for delivery and postal workers refused to deliver it, there'd be a big bloody u[proar about homophobia - guaranteed.

Riverwind, a minor point. The government no longer sets reserve requirements in Canada.Otherwise, your post was a breath of sweet reason in a thread of rank gibberish. Besides, correct me if i'm wrong, but if the Government could just print it's own money anytime it wanted, wouldn't that completely undermine the whole monetary system?

I'm not sure it's a question of who is being silenced, but a question of what is being said. I think there is a large distinction between someone saying "I want an equal place in society" versus someone saying "This group of people through their immoral actions has caused a plague on society." Of course I haven't actually read the pamphlet, I've only seen the title of it as pictured in the CBC link in the original post: "The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the sin of Homosexuality (AIDS)". No - it's about who's being silenced.

Fairy tale. Example of this please? Another fairy tale. If anything, thanks to social engineers like you, efforts are geared toward ENCOURAGING girls to enter these faculties. Which is why women are OVER represented in LAW, BUSINESS and MEDICINE (perhaps the most difficult and scientific faculty of them all). You're spewing typical lefty rhetoric with no facts to back up your statements. t HAS been over examined for decades by people like you. My point is there is 50,000 pound elephant in the room called BIOLOGY which you seem insistent upon pretending doesn't exist. You're so fanatical about your anti "women in the kitchen" rhetoric that you can't see that part of women's instincts and biology put a big percentage of women in that position out of CHOICE. You seem insistent upon talking down toward women who choose the home and family over a career in astrophysics. Get over it. You're insulting a huge percentage of th population by doing so. Not to mention that your ASSUMPTION that women are "in the kitchen" (ie. at home raising childeren and caring for the family - oh what a sin) out of FORCE as opposed to choice is simply inaccurate and generalizing. Another sexist assumption. So now you're saying women don't have a maternal instinct? I love the left. I guess we'll have to pit my certainty of today (more women stay home with the kids than men do) up against your dreamworld of the future. Facts usually win out. Good try though.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much. Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it! It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard. Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck. But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!! Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather.

Personally I don't agree with the pamphlet. But again I can't help but notice the pattern here. Who is being silenced here? Gays or Christians? Christians are. This comes down to two completely opposite beliefs. But one side is being silenced and the other side is being championed. Just remember, every time I hear about "Gay Rights" and not having a voice in society, think about these examples of how Gay rights are not only protected, but they're protected in the face of the constitutional right to freedom of speech and religion. My point is this: Anyone trying to fool you into believing that Gays, Minorities, Women etc. are not represented in our society are living in the past. The establishment? The establishment in today's world IS gay, minority, left wing.

No, that would be Radical Islamic literature protected under Canada's multicultural policies.

I think what Jerry is pointing out is that it is a free country. The Dixie Chicks have sung about what they want to sing about, and no one is putting them in jail or oppressing them. On the contrary, they are quite successful, and I dont think the fact that someone made a threat to them means that person was put up to it by the BUsh administration or the majority of their supporters. Overall, what they have been faced with is dissent from a certain faction of the public that disagrees with the views of The dixie Chicks. They say it is impossible to express dissent against Bush, but they are facing no consequences from it, and are selling quite well it seems. It seems the real problem they have is when a certain faction of the public has dissent with them. That's exactly my point. Great post by the way. You articulated it better than I can. It's the same all over hollywood - "controversy". Hollywood types (yes, Natalie LIVES in LA) love to write songs/make movies about subjects which are supposedly "controversial" like gay cowboys or ...wait for it....MCARTHYISM!!! being "silenced" by the big bad right wingers. They love to fight battles that have already been won. But what they don't realize is that these things have become and now ARE the establishment, not the rebellious. Gays don't have a voice? take a look around? Lefty anti bush-anti war people are downtrodden and silenced and not allowed to speak? HUH? If you really had some balls you'd make a movie or write a song about a gay yak herder on the pushtun plain. See how fast it takes your house to get firebombed. The song and the attitude of the Dixie Chicks is that they werenot allowed to speak their minds without people disagreeing with them. Well Nat: right back at ya!!!

There's no denying women have made strides in education, in political representation (it wasn't that long ago that they couldn't actually vote), in reproductive and personal freedom etc etc. (all thanks to feminism). This would seem to indicate that there's a lot of women out there who aret interested in more than picking out curtains, making dinner and vacumning the rug. Again, thanks to feminism, they have other options. But that doesn't mean they are equal. They are still underepresented in politics, in the workplace, and in the boardrooms. There's still lots of barriers keeping women from advancing in those realms and pushing them in the direction of the home (again: have you ever heard a man talk about the challenge of maintaining a career and a home life?), but hey: that's what feminism is for. I'm not denying it's importance. But I have to ask how those responsibilities benefit women: it's telling that women in your world get loads of responsibility and plenty of (unpaid) work, but what do they get out of it? The underlying implication is that women happily sacrifice their time because, well, that's what women are for. Men, on the other hand, sacrifice their time, but in exchange for more money and more clout. More clout in the workplace maybe. That means nothing on the homefront. You'd be surprised how many captains of industry are totally neutered at home. Your comment about "lots of barriers keeping women form advancing ni those realms." Can you give me an example? I submit to you that women who want to advance and succeed in these areas in fact do so. This whole social engineering - ie. people in parlaiment or industry must be represented by their proportion in society is ridiculous. Maybe women aren't enginners because their not good at math or because most women just don't find it interesting. WHO REALLY CARES? It just makes me laugh when social engineers say "we need more women in engineering." NO WE DON'T!! We need no such thing. Someone out there has made it into an equality issue. That's like saying "we need more racoons in Saskatchewan". No we don't. If there is are proportionately less racoons in saskatchewn, there might just be a very good, non-discriminatory reason for it. Same as women engineers. Or MPs, or industry captains. BY THE WAY, YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU DON'T HEAR MEN COMPLAINING ABOUT BALANCING WORK AND HOME LIFE. AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR CENTURIES. WHY IS THAT? Because men don't see it as some big accomplishment that they go to work, do work there, then come home and do work there, too. But the point still remains: women give birth and raise childeren. Most have an instinct to do so and to take care of those childeren and that instinct is usually stronger than the instinct to go out and get that promotion. Many women take 10-20 years away from the workforce to care for their childeren which is noble, admirable, thoughtful, caring and generally, well, motherly. That's a biological fact of life. No liberal women's program or feminist movement will ever change this biology. And as a result of this basic truism, women will always lag men (in numbers) in the workplace. BUT the women who so choose to forgoe motherhood in favor of career advancement do have and will continue to have great successes, as much as men, in whichever field they choose. Please give me an example of how this is not the case.

The following are extracts from Sheik Taj Din al-Hilaly's controversial sermon given last month, as independently translated by an SBS Arabic expert: “Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.” “When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.” “But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.” “If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?” “If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.” “If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.” “Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger in necessity, Satan tells women you‘re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.” “...The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.”

Nope. Scatological or physlogical insults (dick, asshole) don't have the same connotations as "bitch". "Dick" simply means "jerk" or unpleasant individual: there's no specific gender. bitch, on the other hand, invokes a sterotype of a woman who is malicious, spiteful, domineering, unpleasant or sexually promiscuous. And when directed at a male, it is essentially saying "You are a woman." Wow - you're really revealing your thoughts here.

Women have always borne the bulk of responsibility for household chores and child rearing. Of course, that usually came at the expense of things like economic autonomy, political representation, and even personal soverignety. That's still the case today in large part. The levelling of the playing field, the increase in women's economic clout and the strides they've made in political representation is almost entirely due to the advancement of feminist ideas. Well, yes and no. Women make up about 60% of the students in universities. I believe the percentage is even higher for Med school, Law school and some other prestigous disciplines. But as long as women have childeren (which admittedly is a question mark in today's baron west), they will generally run the household. As for economic autonomy a marriage is a union - a partnership. If the marriage disolves - that's been taken care of by divorce law. Ah yes - divorce court. Another area where women hold the balance of power. As for "political representation" - last time I checked women had just as many votes as men. Perhaps there just aren't as many women interested in becoming an MP. Perhaps they're more focussed upon the important areas of life - areas where they hold a great deal of decision making power and influence. I'm sorry you don't seem to see the value and importance of this realm. Really, it matters far more than the next "royal commission on blah blah blah" being headed up by some former premier....

This ain't hard, so I'm not sure why you can't grasp it. MacKay's slur at Stronach was not necessarily indicative of any braod anti-women sentiment on his part, but the fact that such slurs against women (injcluding the word "bitch")are commonplace demonstrates the imbalance in how women are viewed in our society. To wit: I can't think of any equivilant insult that attacks men based on their gender (indeed, in our society, "manliness" is a virtue, while being feminine is indicative of weakness). ok, Dick

But as far as power goes, that's where stuff happens. So while men have power in society's economic and political realms, women have power over cleaning the toilet or scrubbing the floor. There you go again wishing people said things that they didn't (a la Mackay). No that's not at all what I said. That's what YOU said. Black DOG i'm starting to wonder about your own little closet perceptions of women. That often happens - people with hidden issues tend to overcompensate. Here, I'll paste it again. Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas

Colour me surprised. haha you fell right into belinda's little web. making this a "woman's issue". nice one. keep scouring those headlines looknig for something...anything...about which to be "upset".

No. I don't.

So women have no power there, but too much here. Uh Huh. Please tell me about the vast power women wield in our society. Is it political? Economic? What? You need to look beyond your basic measures. There is a lot more giong on in the world than a bunch of MPs sitting in parlaiment or a bunch of CEOs making capital expenditure decisions. Think of your day to day life. Family, home, purchase decisions, childbirth decisions, home buying decisions, home decorating decisions, decisinos about what we put into our bodies, decisions about when generally get married, start families, etc. I would argue that women handle many of these decisions on AT LEAST an equal footing with men, and maybe even hold the balance of power in these areas. So when you think about it, sure you could argue that men might have more decisino making power when it comes to where to build the next wal mart...but do they? After all, perhaps it's women who dictate shopping habits, buying patterns and ultimately where that stotre goes? It's a nuanced subject and I don't expect you'll grasp it right away, but think it through a bit. Women hold a great deal of power in our day to day lives, and indeed hold virtually all decision making power in one of life's BIGGEST realms: ie. procreation. So to argue that women lack power is a one dimensinoal look at the society we live in. ALthough with more Muslims moving in, that could change, too.

Ah, now I see what your getting at. Your approach is so confused its hard to make heads or tales of it. You're referring to this statement I made above: "But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women." I'll have to bring you along slowly. First: can you think of a common derogatory term for women with canine connotations? Ahhh, yes black DOG In lefty circusland ...the strange and bizarre world known as "Neveroffendanyoneorevenbepercievedtobepossiblyoffendinganyoneland", I think we should enact a new law: Whenever referring to someone as a BYATCH, especially someone who humiliated you publically, betrayed her professinoal colleagues and is named as "the other woman" in a high profile divorce case, make sure you don't just call her a BYATCH, you need to throw in a qualifier: "I would like to remind everyone that the word I am about to use or perhaps just allude to or gesture is directed solely at the vile piece of work not sitting in that seat, and not at the entire gender to which she happens to belong." That ought to keep the offended-police at bay 'till the next parlaimentary outbreak (oops, it's already happened!).