dialamah

I think it would have been unusual for a 15-year-old boy to be a father. More likely he would be out learning a trade or working the family farm, or perhaps soldiering somewhere. 15-year-old girls, however, would have been married to already established men much older than themselves. On the other hand, we could both be wrong. This article says that both men and women tended to be in their 20s at marriage with little age disparity between them, at least in some parts of Europe.

Are you saying Wynne has never flattered you poorly in an elevator so you have no scandal?

Any time, I suppose. Perhaps you have some scandal with her to share?

Women will soon have to take over at the rate the men are falling. Who knew there were so many nasty guys in the world?

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm Could you at least try to make a cogent and effective argument? "I haven't seen it, therefore it didn't happen" is toddler level cognitive behavior.

Oh well, if you've never seen or heard of something, neither has anyone and it never happened.

Good question.

The woman who opened the first ever shelter for women 40 or so years ago in England says levels of violence are roughly equal, although women tend to be more seriously injured for obvious reasons. She thinks men need more support and I believe has opened a man's shelter. She's been shunned by women"s groups, unfortunately.

They send out surveys to women that ask: Have you ever been sexually assaulted? And Did you report it? If 66.666 of women answer yes to the first question and no to the second question then they come up with the statistic "two thirds of sexual assaults go unreported". Easy peasy.

You seem to continue to miss or ignore the point I am making: The same mindset (or thought process or value) that created the Nun's habit continues today among Christans and Muslims and probably Hindus and Sikhs. That mindset is that a woman's clothing reflects her purity and modesty, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then she risks arousing a man to sexual violence. You can raise all kinds of points around that, including style of dress and punishment for failing to adhere to whatever modesty standard is set, but none of that changes the basic reason of why such groups impose dress codes on women. Anyway, I am done here.

If its the reasoning behind the wearing of niqabs and burkas that offends you, then you should be equally offended by any religion that tells women they must dress a certain way to demonstrate their modesty, purity and to avoid sexual harassment. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. A billion and a half Muslims don"t wear niqabs or burkas. Most of those who even wear a head covering wear the hijab. Women of other faiths that have dress codes are not free to wear jeans or t-shirts without significant social censor and sometimes violence. If small numbers are a reason not to care about what a group is doing, then you have no reason to comcern yourself with burka or niqab wearing women. They number fewer than old order Mennonites and Amish, two Christian sects that impose similar dress strictures on women that conservative Islam does.

Here's a clue for you: the women in Mennonite/Mormon/Jewish clothing that requires covering up, including their hair, are alive and well today. In addition, many mainstream Christian sects expect the women to dress "modestly" today. They do so for the same reason Islam expects modest clothing for their women - to prove her purity and modesty, so that men are not unduly distracted.

Drivel. Until the last century or less, women's clothing style was driven by notion that a woman must prove and protect her purity. Currently, the nun's habit, the dress of Mennonites, fundamental Mormons, some other Christian and Jewish sects still reflect that belief in the clothing the women wear.

They both arise from the notion that women need to be covered to prove their purity.

Wikipedia has a list, which lists terror attacks based on ideology. Most of the non-Islamic attacks are older, the more recent ones tend to be related to Islamic extremists. I think small sample size is irrelevant. If you check out terror attacks in Finland, Sweden and Germany, they don't seem to have as many as France or Britain, despite pretty high numbers of refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries. I think we're not a such a large political target as France, Britain or the States and that is partly why we've been relatively immune. But it seems that as ISIS continues to lose ground in Syria, there may be more terror attacks in Western countries. This is an interesting article analyzing both the expectations of terror attacks since 9/11, vs. the reality. In many ways, the fear of terror attacks has not been borne out by the reality. I agree that most people think that, but that doesn't make it automatically true. Since the religion of any other terrorist (or even mass murderer) is not generally part of the story and motives can be hard to define, it's impossible to know if other "religions" have more or less killers in their midst than Muslims. People who attack and kill abortion providers, for example, are not generally thought of as 'Christian terrorists' - yet what else are they? White Supremacists are heavily influenced by "Christian" ideology, yet nobody would call them "Christian terrorists" when they set fire to buildings or attack people.

I can see that this would feel true to a lot of people, but is it really true? At this point in time, most terror events in Canada are committed by non-immigrant Canadians, usually of European descent and from a Christian background, even if not actively Christian. We don't have a lot of terror events, and most are limited to property damage and are not directed against people. And so far, the most deadly terror event in Canada has not been from a Muslim. So, I invite you to detail your reasoning behind this statement.

In a perfect world, we could do this eh? But why stop at women? Why not also have men educated about domestic abuse? Domestic violence is still a problem for many, many women - whatever they wear - and too often these women feel trapped within those relationships. There are groups like this, of course, but it can be hard for some women to attend. If there were an effective way of ensuring all men and women attended such groups, maybe we could effectively eliminate domestic abuse. Forbidding women certain clothing to 'save them from oppression' is just so stupid, in my opinion. If any individual woman is being forced to wear a burka or niqab, then penalizing *her* for it misses the mark. If she chooses to wear it, then who are we to take away her freedom to dress how she wishes? But I suppose some people need to hide their Islamophobia behind a "Saving the women" excuse, so they can feel virtuous instead of just hateful.

@blackbird. Does that matter, really? Does knowing that Christmas isn't found in the Bible, or that early Christians didn't celebrate it make it any less a religious matter for those Christians that celebrate it today?

Yes indeed and now conveniently a law banning face veils in public will make those.women even more invisible and powerless.

When you said you aren't allowed the freedom to sacrifice babies under freedom.of religion and so women shouldn't be allowed to wear face veils under freedom of religion.

I do not remember any news stories about a woman refusing to remove her face-veil to allow for security screening. Do you have a cite? You personally have had to accommodate bizarre and unhealthy religious beliefs? Or are you referring to yourself as.part of the collective of Canadians?

They aren't "my women". And no, I do not want them to be forced to cover up and be totally obedient. I also do not want to further oppress these women via my government. I do not believe it will do any good telling a woman that may be in an abusive relationship that she cannot wear a face-veil in public, while her abuser(s) tell her she can't be in public without a face-veil. To me, it makes as much sense as making it illegal for women to be in public with bruises.

Agree that the persuasion away from this type of clothing is a good idea, although I do not believe that "legislation" is the right method because it will really only work for women who's families do not require them to be covered outside the home. But I could be wrong. Perhaps these kinds of laws will work better than I think in terms of freeing oppressed women, but if not, its only a very few women who will be forced to languish out of sight of the rest of us.

Cite, please. My understanding is that they do remove their face covering when required for passport, licences, airport security. The accommodation is that they are able to do so in private in front of women. It would be equally as difficult to hide a bomb, machete or gun under a face veil. Perhaps you meant the burqa, with which I would agree that you could hide a lot of things. But if hiding lethal items in one's clothing is a concern, then baggy jeans, full skirts, hoodies and trench coats should also be banned, not to mention large bags. Perhaps only skin tight clothing, no pockets or bags larger than a few inches will have to be legislated in the name of security. Unless one is presupposing that women in burkas are more of a threat than men in baggy jeans and hoodies. Where I live, I see surgical masks weekly but haven't seen a niqab or burka in months.