CITIZEN_2015

I am not sure I understand what the fuss is all about. Any patient has the right to refuse a doctor she or he does not want. In one occasion it involved intimate examination under the belly and I did ask for a male doctor only. I don't think it was because my religion forbids women doctors but rather a personal choice and shyness would have made me very uncomfortable. So, i guess same can be said about me. I think a patient has the right to choose her or his doctor. I don't think the news media should have tracked down the lady who asked for a white doctor. It was her choice and likely she gave up on the best available doctor or best medical care by doing so but again her life, her right and her choice. I think we are taking political correctness too far in the western democracies.

Actually there are a few errors in above post. It is true unlike what DOP said, yes the British and Russians cooperated on the coordinated invasion and deposed the Shah BUT he was replaced with his SON not nephew. Yes the new Shah despised Russians for Good reasons (as everyone in his right mind would). They tried to take over and separate the North West Azeri province and make it a Soviet bloc. It was his policy and army with US and UN support which liberated that province from Russians. BUT he was not pro-British either because the British exiled his father and likely killed him to (indirectly he died of sadness to see his beloved country under occupation). He despised the British but had to be cozy with them as Britain was a major part of western alliance against Russia plus a good source of weapons (Chieftain tanks) for his army. Yes the Shah was pro-west because it was during the cold war and Iran was under threat from northern neighbor so in order to protect Iran and his throne he had to get close to US and Nato not to mention the aid he received in 1953 from the CIA to get back his throne. The pre-Islamic Persia as it used to be called (Persian empire) was NOT violent as it carried out many good deeds. The Very first Charter of Human rights in history which brought equality to all races under Persian Empire was brought in by Persian King 2500 years ago. http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/ This empire also Freed Jews from slavery some 2500 years ago. BCE. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great the founder of the second Iranian dynasty, the Achaemenids, also brought many Jews into the mainland. In 539 BCE, Emperor Cyrus entered Babylon with little resistance. The temple of Marduk their major deity was restored and Cyrus crowned himself in the name of Marduk. The Jewish slaves in Babylon were freed and permitted to go home and reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem and some chose to remain in the new Empire. The restoration was confirmed by Darius the Great and commenced at the time of Artaxerxes I. Under Darius around 30,000 Jews left Babylon to start work on the temple. The mild treatment Iranians accorded their conquered subjects was part of the Imperial doctrine led by Cyrus the Great which was influenced by his Zoroastrian faith. The policies of the central administration encouraged autonomy in internal affairs with little intervention from the Iranians. For instance, the Satrap (Governor General) of Judah, which constituted the fifth Satrapy, had his own local governor in Samaria with the right of supervision over the deputy in Judah. Violence started after Arab invasion 1400 years ago.

I am very knowledgeable about international politics and have met many people of various nationalities in the long 12 university years and engaged in political and social discussions as well as in the bars during the younger days and still do meet people of various national origins at work. Nationalities I have met include but not limited to Persians (I did have a Persian girlfriend for a while and was close to her family), but also South Americans (as why I know about Chile and Argentina) and Arabs and Turks and Greeks and Israelis and French and Polish and Russian and British and Chinese and even Central Americans plus the fact that international politics is my favorable subject. That does not mean I am all those nationalities just because I know about them and I comment with passion. I could debate Chilean politics as well as Iranian or Greek or Turkish or Arabian politics.

All these decades in Canada I have never come across anyone who wears neqap (if that is what I think it is like a mask covering the face and only two eyes are out. Very scary). But yes I see an increasing number of hijab wearing women. What I say is that there are also a large number of Muslim women mainly from Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, Bosnia, Tunisia who don't but we never know they are Muslims. That said I don't have a number as how many wear and how many don't wear hijab.

They do exist. A tiny minority of Muslim women wear niqab and a minority the hijab either by own choice or family and cultural pressure. Whether they realize it or not they represent a symbol of women's oppression. Whether they can be allowed to immigrate as I said I don't understand why they wish to come to a country where it is totally alien to them and be stared at and likely insulted too. Though if they wish to come here again they have to qualify like other immigrants based on education, wealth adaptability and contributions they are anticipated to make. If they do quallify then they cannot be rejected based on cover alone.

If you read my post which you quoted I did say that if they serve Canada then in spite of covering their head they should be allowed in. Please do not compare head turban with hijab. The head turban is a CHOICE. Many wear that and still do by choice after they come here. They are educated and successful. Hijab is FORCED and represents symbol of oppression. A majority when they come here they choose not to wear head/face cover. Also Where they come from they are mostly denied of education and equal opportunities (not in Iran and Turkey and Morocco but in most Arab countries) so highly unlikely they will be contributors here. But those tiny minority who I described in my post yes they should be allowed in if there are any.

That is why I said adaptability should get a lot more than 5 points. The current immigration policy is flawed and needs changing so that immigrants serve Canada rather than the other way round. So you say if they are investors and highly educated and can contribute to Canada's well being and better the lives of Canadians but they CHOOSE to cover their hair and face? Yes they should be allowed in for sure.

Hundreds of thousands are denied immigration because they don't qualify so does that mean we ban the poor and the uneducated and the criminals? If they do not qualify (say for adaptability then they are not allowed in for whatever reasons one being adaptability as a small criteria.

Yes. Immigration is for Canada's benefit not Canada for Immigrants' benefits. It seems like current immigration system is the latter not former. I also give a chance to those who may not benefit Canada in short term but work hard and give back a lot in long term.

Yes this is true. Adaptability scores only 5 points out of the 60+ so it is there but not enough points are given to it. I would raise that to 20 or 30 and raise qualifying to much higher than what it is now.

We cannot and must not ban a choice. Not sure where I indicated that. Otherwise we are as bad as those who FORCED hijab and Canada is not a place to ban a personal choice (unless it harms others like drunk driving). What I am saying is that Canada must admit those who are forced to do things against their will and who are compatible with people here (like the majority of Muslim women who are here and have no hijab or niqab and we don't even know they are from Muslim countries because they are not visible) and not admit those who are totally incompatible with the traditions and cultures here based on freedom of choice and equality. Those men who try to force or have no respect for women and those women who try to force others must fail compatibility test. I never suggested deportation of those who choose to wear face cover, however I did ask why they chose to come here while they were among their own culture and people back in Arabia.

You people don't seem to read my posts and keep on saying I tell them what is good for them. I am not saying what is good for anyone. This is not my business. I am saying that they represent symbol of women's repression and incompatible with the existing culture in Canada. Canada must provide refuge to those who are FORCED to wear hijab or niqab or whatever it is called not those who wear it by choice and good majority are from safe zones not war torn areas and are safer where they are back in Arabia.

First off Canada has an immigration policy. Compatibility is a criteria in that policy. These are not compatible. Second you are either misinformed or deliberately trying to distort the truth, I am saying they are safer where they are because nobody would dislike them or attack them over there where they cover their faces. Those who are unsafe over there are those who are forced to cover hair and likely faces as they will be attacked and beaten, then when they come here they refuse to cover face or hair like the majority of female Muslim immigrants who refuse to given in to repression after they land here. I want a safe place for THEM not for those who are safer where they are.

Tudeh party was the same as the other communist parties in Eastern Europe like East Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Balkans, Czechoslovakia, ..... after Soviet occupation post WWII. They were too all traitors to their countries and their nations like the communist party in Afghanistan post Zahir Shah who sold off their countries and murdered and tortured their own citizens to preserve Russian interests. Fortunately Tudeh party never got the chance. I hope they burn in hell.

Yes but I am not saying they should remove it or have to go back home. I am saying they should not have come here at the first place. I never claim doing anything for them. Yes I feel uncomfortable because as I said they represent a symbol of women's repression where women are being attacked and beaten if they refuse to comply to strict rules.

Yes but when they are here they are not being bombed so they must stop that. That is my whole point. ONCE HERE STOP because nobody forces them anymore but if it is a choice they stay where you are as everyone is like them. They have the freedom in Canada yes, but they don't exercise that freedom by covering the face and they continue to represent symbol of repression of women. I meant they are better off if going to mosque is what they prefer day and night as they live at home with people who like and think the same way. Only come here IF they wish a CHANGE otherwise STAY where they are.

Tudeh party being traditionally a traitor bunch of people who formed a so called party to sell Iran to Russians gets cozy with anyone in power who is popular. They were cozy with Mosaddegh for the reason that he was popular but Mosaddegh was not cozy with them, and they did same with Islamic regime at first when they were popular too but the mullahs were not cozy with them. Their plan is to back stab later and sell Iran to Russians. Russian interest is the only interest they ever cared about.

This is BS. The British and Soviet colluded on this invasion and pre-planned the sudden invasion. Ambassadors of both countries went to see the then Shah to inform him of the mutual invasion. They invaded same day and same hour even, in the early morning hours taken Iranian army by surprise and most sleeping. The biggest lie here is that Mosaddegh was cozy with Russians. He was a nationalist and he knew well that both Russians and British are Iran's enemy and never liked either of them. The British got him deposed so that they continue to rob Iranians in different ways. Down with Britain. I am happy to see Britain losing its colonies and getting poor and poorer every day. Bastard blood suckers.

No not allowed to: What I don't understand is this. If they wish to cover their faces why is that they don't stay where they are in Arabia where it is a practice to do so and there are more mosques. Why on earth they come here where this is not practiced or tradition and everybody looks at them weird and they are separated from society and at odds with it? They may come here for better lives for economic benefits and then this means they want just to take but not to give an inch!!. As I said before this is incompatible with traditional way of living of people already here most born and raised here not to mention they stand for or represent symbol of repression of women in regions where women are FORCED to wear hijab or even in Arabia forced to cover their faces and therefore because of this cultural incompatibility they should be rejected and not allowed in a country whose people stand for equality of women.

Very factual statements of the events. Well said.

Yes Russians refused to leave the Azari province in North west Iran as it is typical of Russians same action in every country they so called liberated from Nazis in Eastern Europe. And it was America and United Nations which helped Iran to get its province back. Plus the fact that the Shah sent an army and crashed the tiny minority Azari traitors and their Tudeh party traitors. The people of that province also rose up against these traitors at the same time the army entered the province helped too. In all I think without the UN and American help liberation of the province (not the whole Iran) would not have been possible which brings me to my point I have made many times that Russians are a lot worse than Americans.

It was a coordinated invasion. Yes the invasions occurred same day same time even at very early hours in the morning and yes Stalin and Churchill colluded for sure on this invasion. The two ambassadors went to see the Shah together to inform him of invasion.

I didn't apologize for Nazis. I just tried to explain why Shah's father (also a shah) was close to Germans because the British and Soviets wanted to divide Iran and capture it. It was playing politics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Surely you are not implying that I am a Nazi are you???? No I don't have to pretend. Your post is up there as evidence. You say Stalin invaded Iran but no mention of Churchill or the British invading Iran at the very same time from the south.

Shah's father wanted to have Germany on his side as he was under pressure by Stalin and Churchill to give them Iran's wealth. This was politics. Iran stands for land of Aryans and Stalin alone did not invade Iran the British did too in order to use Iran as a supply route for Russia. I have already explained the reasons for 1953 coup. It was oil and petroleum not because of what happened more than a decade earlier.

Iranian people not so much the government was cozy with Nazi Germany as both nations are Aryans though Persians were geographically in a violent area of planet and frequently invaded and captured by barbarians like Arabs and Moguls and Turks. So now they are mixed. In 1941 in fact the fresh government of Shah Mohamad Reza Pahlavi declared war on Germany after it was occupied by British and Russian. In fact they called Iran the Victory Bridge. The 1953 coup had nothing to do with any of this. It was the British imperialism who lost a free resource (Iranian oil) in 1953 as a result of oil nationalization by Mosaddegh. They were stealing Iranian resources for decades and they lost this so they designed a devious plan to overthrow Mosaddegh government and tricked US into believing that Mesaddegh is in bed with communists or exaggerate the danger of a communist take over. The US always being a fool was fooled and staged this coup and now both are and will be paying the price for this aggression.