dialamah

Woman who protested Iran's ban on women watching soccer dies after setting herself on fire in protest of jail sentence. Iran is a terrible place.

Perhaps the alternatives seem worse? Not to mention, people are pretty inured to our government and charges of corruption - it is a staple, regardless of ideology of the government in power. I also read something the other day ( sorry, no cite) that a surprising number of people hadn't heard of the SNC Lavalin affair. Also, Trudeaumeter tells us that out of 231 campaign promises, JT has fulfilled 108, is working on 47, has 27 yet to begin and broke 46. The promises he broke were pretty big, so he's lost support from people who cared about those issues. Still, he's fulfilled more than he's broken. That may matter to some people.

If the "climate cultists" don't achieve their "radical goal", people will starve and die, and society will collapse. Mitigating the effects offers the hope of reducing the overall death toll and reducing societal "collapse" to societal upheaval. **radical goals = a few cents more at gas pumps, a little less meat on our plates, investment in green energy, gradual reduction on fossil fuel reliance.

And the longer climate change deniers fight mitigation because "someone over there is a worse offender" or because "it won't, by itself, solve the problem" or becsuse "3% of scientists disagree" or because "it's just a plot by government to steal our money" or because "it's a hoax by the Chinese", the harsher those conditions will be. For many people, climate change will mean the "end of the world" as the land they lived in for millennia will become uninhabitable.

Generally it's the "in-group" who decides who'll be part of the group. Virtually ethnic immigrant wave who've come to Canada have had to face discrimination from Canadians already here. Is it any wonder they've formed enclaves, where they won't be called chink, or wop, or kike, or towelhead; where they are less likely to face harassment and violence by random members of the "in-group"? Acceptance has to work both ways. Spreading anti-immigrant sentiment is a time honored tradition in Canada, along with blaming immigrants for not integrating when they are told, in ways big and small, that they "don't fit in".

Right. So believable.

Thanks, this is an interesting article. Still researching.

Wow, so stupid to miss the point of my post.

I did, First time ever, maybe the only time. I also was a scrutineer.

I do kinda wonder what your reaction would be if the Americans just started bulldozing Canadian homes in rural areas of Canada, moving American "settlers" in and saying - "this is American land now", while also cutting off supply lines for food and other goods and shooting real bullets into protesters armed with rocks. I, personally, would gladly support a Canadian Hamas to build tunnels and fire rockets.

I found an article, perhaps the basis for the missing one, from 2007. https://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ Didn't read all of it, but what I did read suggests that the full story is more nuanced than "brown/Muslim immigrants are bad".

In which case, women are in a lose-lose situation because even in our progressive society, if they have a baby out-of-wedlock, they are censured, especially if they don't have much money. If they have an abortion, they are censured for being careless "using abortion as birth control", and being a murderer. Men are only censured if they fail to pay child support, and you'd be surprised by how many men simply disappear, even on kids they said they wanted, leaving the woman to raise them. It isn't fair, I agree. Men and women make mistakes and there are consequences. Men who think abortion availability should be their "get out of jail free" card do not understand that many women, while supporting abortion in the abstract, would never have an abortion themselves for moral or religious reasons. They underestimate the effect birth control, abortion and pregnancy can have on a woman's body and mental health and over-estimate women's dishonesty and avarice to justify their desire for consequence-free sex. It isn't fair, and men have to take their lumps just like women do when it comes to unintended pregnancy. "Unspoken contract" does not exist. If you want a contract, get it in writing.

Where these Muslims primarily from Islamic countries? Did females express a greater fear than males? I ask because that's the sense I get from the ex-Muslim subreddit. It's sad how similar the emotional experience is between JWs/Muslims/Hindus who leave their respective faiths after being raised in it, and lose family and friends. Makes me just generally hate religion.

What I also find interesting is that Christianity loses roughly the same as Islam, but Islam gains more converts than Christianity, so Islam overall continues to grow while Christianity does not. A surprising number of Christians convert to Islam. My guess would be that these Christians actually want a stricter and more fundamental type of religion, and Christianity no longer fits the bill, as it's become more progressive. OTOH, maybe these Christian to Muslim converts will be part of the pressure to eliminate/modernize the worst aspects of Islam.

No, but it's his risk as much as the woman's that sex will result in s pregnancy. Men need to understand that. Too many men, and women, want to put all the responsibility of birth control and all the consequences of pregnancy on the woman, with the man "opting in" if he feels like being a dad, financially or otherwise. Women not men, deal with societal censure for getting pregnant when they lack money, and getting an abortion for any reason including because they lack money. Men need to understand that a possible consequence of pregnancy is a child who will need a father. If they don't want that, they should use a condom regardless of the birth control the woman uses. They should know the woman's moral or religious stance on abortion before having sex. Boys should be taught this from a young age the same way girls are taught to avoid putting themselves in situations where they could be raped. Life isn't fair, the best we can do is mitigate risk.

Just watched it on Netflix, it was funny, and didn't do JT any favors.

Good news! Wonder if the same is true of all Western countries. Hope they're choosing atheism and not converting to some fundamentalist Christian group. Also interesting ... https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-42090104 List of ex-Muslim organizations around the world, who knew?

Kind of stupid imo. If you boys can't keep it put away don't whinge about the consequences. Babies are one of the consequences of sex and if your condom breaks or her birth control fails, a baby may happen. Complaining that she can opt out but you can't ignores the reality that women take all the risks of pregnancy or abortion, so it is their decision which risk they're more willing to take. Child support is government-mandated because why should taxpayers be on the hook for your babies? Not to mention the concerted effort, in the States, to deny women access to both abortion and birth control, the way conservatives and the religious right in Canada shames women for having babies they "can't afford" and also shaming them for having abortions - and maybe you'll get an idea why you don't get to just walk away free and clear from a baby you took part in creating.

This is a fine statement, no accusations which I appreciate, clearly summarized and it does actually inspire me to dig deeper. I shall endeavor to prove to myself the following: 1. Majority of Muslims want to impose Sharia type laws against criticizing Islam/Mohammed in Western countries (I have no doubt some do, but have doubts about how prevalent that desire is). 2. Courts are actually imposing limitations on expressing such criticism (for me, this probably requires looking at a few example cases to see the reasons behind those decisions). 3. I agree that the actions of extremists in punishing critics of Islam are of concern. I'm not as convinced as you that they are actually working, but will see what I can find to support this. Ciao.

What "other rights" do I think come after "Muslim rights"? Be specific, and use my own quotes to prove this. What exactly are "Muslim rights"? Same rights as everyone else, maybe? Maybe I am wrong, but you'll never convince me of that by telling.me.what I think, accusing me of saying ridiculous things, but not quoting my exact words, or using poor sources. A couple of people who could convince me I'm wrong are Ghosthacked and MH because they show sense and are not all one-sided all the time. Both of them have caused me to re-examine my views because of what they've posted. Even Argus has, re: immigration, simply because he uses sources that are difficult to de-bunk. Another source I've used to challenge my views is the exmuslim reddit; they've done more to validate your opinion to me than you have. Nonetheless, I agree with the poster who said "Most Muslims are better than their religion."

That's a personal opinion, though, and is not the legal or medical definition of pedophilia. Add to that the fact that M married adult women, including one older than him, then the legal/medical definition does not hold, regardless of one's personal opinion. Also, child marriage has been common throughout history, with consummation happening when the girl started menses. Menses at 9 is not terribly uncommon, so the most likely explanation is that M was simply following the traditions of his time, not that he was a pedophile. To me, it's much more disgusting that Iran allows marriage of girls as young as 9, relying on the history of Islam for justification. In my opinion, that law panders to actual pedophiles, since child marriage is widely condemned and most MENA countries do have an age requirement of 18 for marriage. That people will break those laws doesn't mean "Muslims" secretly believe in child marriage, any more than my 12-year-old girlfriend getting married to a 19-year-old, with parents blessing, or the 15 and 16 year-old friends who married in 1972 and 1974 meant "Canadians" believed in child marriage.

Fair enough. Have you already provided credible cites proving that journalists have backed off saying stuff due to this case against Ezra Levant? If yes and I missed them, I'll look through the last few pages to find them. If not, then please post them. I'm certainly open to the idea that people could be hesitant about saying even "true" stuff that could land them in court - it's one tool we have that helps us keep a civil and law-abiding society. Did I miss a cite about a court case regarding this? Not gonna look, but if there is, I hope the complainant loses and realizes that in Western countries, religious accommodation does not trump the rights of minority groups, whether a gay couple getting married or a blind person with a guide dog. Nonetheless, people can and do take these kinds of things to court. It's part of "Freedom" even if it's the Christian Right taking aim at women. What matters more is their success; in the three examples currently under discussion, only one case was "successful" in considering "Muslim sensibilities". If that holds true for all such court cases, then I don't think there's much to worry about. BTW, did you look at the reasons for the decision in the Austrian case? The goal of the government with their "disparagement of religion law" seems to be to allow criticism of religion that relies on facts and evidence, vs. opinion and supposition. Perhaps a desire to avoid falling into the same kind of propaganda that marked Hitler's marginalization of Jews is what motivates this kind of legislation.

You claimed that Muslims want to impose Sharia law and are successfully doing so in Europe. As proof, you provided the story of a Muslim woman who was left property in her husband's will. In order to get her inheritance, this woman had to take it to court so that civil laws would apply. My link showed that: 1. In Greece, Muslims have been legally subject to Sharia law since 1918. 2. This case challenged that, and the courts ruled in her favor. 3. The court also removed the Sharia law for Muslims requirement that had been in place since 1918. 4. Muslims supported this move by the courts (though no doubt there were some dissenters, there always are). So, this example you provided as proof that Muslims are attempting to enforce Sharia law through the courts was actually an example of a Muslim woman enforcing civil law through the courts, challenging a law that had been in place for 100+/- years and ultimately having that law overthrown. Seems like the exact opposite of your claim, but feel free to provide additional cites that demonstrate exactly how I'm wrong about this example of yours, instead of repeating endlessly that I just don't get it.