dialamah

Please, question them. I don't mind. But until you present credible evidence why they aren't accurate, I guess I'll just believe them and not you. I don't see why I have to come up with a reason, really. Information from experts seems more compelling, to me, than a list that by its nature will change over time and will be different depending on location. For example, this list from 2016, seems to indicate that 7 of the 12 "Most Wanted" in Canada at that time were non-immigrant, white Canadians. And in BC 34 of the 41 "most wanted" seem to be non-immigrant, judging by faces and names. I don't feel like researching any farther how "most wanted" lists have changed over time or between provinces, but hey, if you want to do that research to prove your point, please fill your boots.

Refusing to take responsibility for those times when Canadians, through their government, stepped all over the rights of others is a classic conservative's stance: "money before honor" seems to be the motto. Clearly, rights that never existed before should absolutely never be given. I've no doubt that some people said exactly that when women were given the right to vote and that more recently quite a number of Saudi men who object to women driving would agree with you. I found and read Ms. McLaughin's essay and it reminded me that judges have always "made law out of thin air" and that our entire judicial system called "common law" has been based on that. I'm not sure what you are saying here, but Ms. McLaughlin's essay seems to be saying that judges should be, and are, impartial and not political. She points out that the *outcome* of judgements may be considered political, so that citizens such as yourself will say "A Liberal judge made that decision" when in fact a decision was based on Constitutional Law. I'm sure a Conservative government would have been happy to pretend that they didn't fail their citizens, and would have been happy to spend millions trying to prove it, and failing. In BC, the "Liberal" government (really a Conservative government in Liberal clothing) unilaterally removed a part of an agreement with the teacher's union about class size and makeup. The teachers sued. The Government lost, in two of three courts over 12 years. The Government then had to come up with 250 to 300 million dollars to redress the situation. How much better would it have been if the government hadn't decided to break the law in the first place? Or even if they did, had decided not to continue fighting after the first decision? Instead, they took an illegal action, to 'save money', created hardship for some BC citizens, paid millions in court costs to defend their poor decision, and then had to pay 100s of millions more of taxpayer dollars to right their wrong. How much money should a government waste on a losing argument? The country is not in serious trouble. This constant claim by conservatives gets tiresome: in economic terms, Canada is doing fine. You can disagree about how government is spending money, but to claim our country is in serious trouble is simply hyperbole. How much JT cares or doesn't care about the average Canadian is certainly debatable, but I don't think we need a new Constitution or even a different approach by judges. Just because conservatives with a poor grasp of why it's important to defend everyone's rights, and don't like a couple of court decisions because they don't think (certain) people are entitled to certain rights is not something I think should be enshrined in our constitution. I bet if we were using taxpayer money to 'protect' non-immigrant, Christian Canadian identity, you'd have no qualms about it. I bet it's only native, immigrant and non-Christian identity you see no reason to 'protect'. Personally, I prefer a country that is willing to 'protect' everyone, not just one segment of society. They could have done that by simply keeping their word. Which they did not do, beginning with the first treaties in the early 1700s right up until the 1980s. Now, as a country who has decided that we really do think it's important to honor the promises we made, we are paying the price. While you may not understand the trauma these kids went through, many people do. Money cannot make that right, of course. But doing absolutely nothing is worse. Of course you do. Misunderstand the issue, blame the Liberals because you are partisan, and make that your argument.

I agree that poverty is a significant factor when it comes to crime. Canada's point system does focus on economic viability of immigrants (I think we can thank Harper for that). But when we have Canadians who will disregard applicants with a non-Canadian name on the resume and knowing nothing else about them, then we have to wonder how much of the immigrant's community unemployment is because they can't work or how much is due to biases against them? I was just visiting Williams Lake, and my brother told me that McDonald's cannot fill all the shifts. I bet they would love some less killed refugees/immigrants right now. I have heard similar reports from elsewhere in Canada, that fast-food joints and low-paying retail outlets are having trouble finding enough staff. Perhaps we should be focusing on less skilled newcomers so we can keep those low-paying jobs, low-paying.

There've been several studies demonstrating that when new immigrants move into an area, the crime rate in that area goes down. These studies also notes that the second generation of immigrants trend closer to the non-immigrant rate of crime, but does not surpass it. In other words, they commit crime at about the same rate as non-immigrants - this is part of becoming culturally integrated, I suppose. https://tinyurl.com/immlcrime https://www.cifar.ca/assets/arrival-of-the-fittest-canadas-crime-rate-is-dropping-as-immigration-increases-is-there-a-connection/ Corrections Canada study of their inmate population. Visible minority offender less likely to be involved in violent crime and less likely to reoffend than Caucasian offenders. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/r144-eng.shtml A study out of Alberta, which focuses on risk factors and protective factors for immigrant youth crime also notes that immigrant youth are no more likely to commit crime than non-immigrant youth. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pcerii/WorkingPapers/WP0209.pdf

At the skytrain waiting for sister so may end this abruptly, but: 1) True. 2) False. 3) True 4) Me too. 5) I don't understand anyone who deliberately hurts another person, for any reason other than self defense or family defense. I can characterize some crimes as more horrific than others, but between crimes of similar barbarity, the motives seem equally stupid and incomprehensible. 6) Agree.

Yes, I know - simplicity is your byword. But it would mean that successive governments since 1996 or so are 'weak-kneed' all alike, which of course shoots the leftist/liberals/JT detractors down. Ok, stop talking now ... I HAVE TO GO!

And I wasn't asked to explain the motivation behind the crime, was I? I was asked why it was still being done if it is illegal. The rest of your post is interesting, though, I shall have to try to take a closer look at it later since my dogs are crossing their legs.

That is a good question, then, isn't it? Because clearly it is not being prosecuted nearly enough. I suppose someone will say "It's because our weak-kneed government is scared of offending Muslims", but I tend to doubt that - sounds too much like a simplistic thought processes that can't coordinate more than one concept at a time. I am guessing the lack is a combination of resources and intelligence from within the community itself, and perhaps a failure of how the law is written. I would like to look into that right now, but since it's already 10 am in my little corner of the world and I have yet to get dressed nor take my little furbabies out to pee, I shall have to try to get to it later.

Why is it so hard for you to admit people break the law because they want to do something that is illegal?

You are right; Canada could do a lot more to address the issue of FGM within Canada. But that still doesn't change the answer to the question "Why do people still perform FGM if it's illegal". People do illegal things because they want to do them regardless of what the law says.

I was more thinking that the 'halfway' would come from Islamophobes and Xenophobes. For those Muslim women who are harassed or physically attacked for wearing the hijab, do you think that's 'meeting them halfway'? Do you think Argus's complaint that "more young women are wearing the hijab, and therefore they are more fanatical and more of a threat" is helping the more extreme among us meet Muslim women halfway? While no poster on this board may be attacking Muslim women verbally or physically, do you think the anti-Muslim postings of DoP, Argus, etc., are 'meeting them halfway' or are they fanning the ire of those who are willing to take that extra step to action? For these people, being Muslim is the problem - whether they are wearing a burka or a headscarf. I read articles critical of Islam and of Islamic countries all the time. None of them resort to 'proving' how ISIS is the only valid interpretation of Islam. They do not refer to Muslims as "barbaric", "unable to change", "not fit for Canadian culture", "misogynistic", as if that were the only way Muslims could be defined. This blogger, for instance: She comments specifically on Egypt, because that's her home country. She is very critical of many of the societal norms and of the government's lack in addressing them. She is also critical of Western media who present Muslims as one-dimensional figures, even if that dimension is positive. But she also presents good news and progress within Egypt and within the wider Muslim society - something that is sorely missing from this forum in the discussion of Muslims.

Yes FGM is a problem in some communities, and it is being addressed in various ways. One of those ways is by making it illegal. Another way is through education. A third is through those women who have had it done, who refuse to do pass it on to their daughters and, in Canada, are able to do that. But the question was "Why is it still happening if it's illegal in Canada", and the answer is still "The same reason people do other illegal things in Canada". Essentially, some people decide that they are going to do whatever they want, regardless of what the law says.

I thought I answered this already, but don't see it. Anyway, what do you know about Egypt? Nothing? That's right, nothing. It is true that most women in Egypt wear at least a headscarf. But my sister, who actually lives there , in a suburb of Alexandria, sees about the same number of women wearing burkas as she sees wearing conservative Western clothing. Notably when the Muslim Brotherhood had their time leading the country, wearing of burkas became more noticeable. When Sisi took over, the wearing of burkas reduced. In Egypt, some people see the wearing of religious dress old-fashioned, or "too religious", others see it as a requirement of true Islam. Cairo university has banned the niqab for teachers, as well as medical staff. Egypt is also considering a law that would ban the burka in government institutions. As for 'despising Coptic Christians', as usual the truth is much more nuanced. It's true that Coptic Churches have been attacked - and those attacks are widely condemned by the government, religious leaders and Muslim citizens. There are numerous stories about Muslims protecting Christians, as well as Christians protecting Muslims. While news stories about conflict are sent throughout the world, there are no news stories about neighbors and friends who are Muslim and Christian, who live and work together on a daily basis. To imagine that the violence that some extremists visit on Christians is the norm of life in Egypt is just dumb. Now, despite how some people will try to spin my words to claim I think Egypt is a wonderful place for women/gays/Christians etc. the truth is that I only object to the one-sided and invariably negative view those people want to disseminate and my posts are about showing 'the other side'. Does Egypt still have a long way to go to match our secular lifestyle and the freedoms we offer citizens? Absolutely. Are they really a society almost entirely composed of Muslim men who treat women like cattle and want to kill anyone not Muslim and straight? Absolutely not. I invite anyone who would like a more balanced view of the issue of women's rights in Egypt, both the successes and the challenges, to read this article. What I particularly like is that the article shows through education and legislation, the incidence of FGM in Egypt has decreased dramatically - and it may now be as low as 50%, from 97%. Of course, 50% is still much too high - but progress should not be ignored or discounted.

What has culture to do with illegal practices? Are they more illegal if they're "cultural"?

Sony provides free showing of Professor Marston and the Wonder Women for the Vancouver Polyamory community. About 50 real-life polyamorists showed up.

Actually, it has been right-wing posters on this forum who have persuaded me of that. I had no pre-conceived notions about right and left when I got here, since I wasn't particularly clear on what those terms even meant, let alone the political ideology behind them. Maybe Liberals didn't have to sell anything, maybe the mean spiritedness is really there. Not that conservatives can't be really nice people too.

No, it wasn't. People do things that are illegal and to ask why FGM is happening in Canada "if it's illegal" is a stupid question. The push to make "Muslim" crime a special category all it's own is just more of the anti-Islamic rhetoric.

I don't think its working for them either, but also don't know how much of a factor it is for the full-meal-deal so to speak. I think the explosion in headscarf or hijab wearing is more obvious as a pushback. But its a two-way street and I don't see the anti-Muslim element making any effort to meet them halfway.

Perhaps as pushback against xenophobic and anti-Muslim attitudes. In the past year, in my relatively high-Muslim area, I have maybe seen a dozen women in burkas. Perhaps the actual numbers of women wearing the burka are so few that its irrelevant and nothing to worry about. Kind of similar to how hate crimes against Jews and Muslims are so few and insignificant that they're irrelevant and nothing to worry about.

Same reason jaywalking, speeding, drug dealing and murder are all being practiced despite being illegal.

So I think this is more fluid than one might think. Using Egypt as an example, because my sister lives there so I have inside information haha, but during the brief time that the Muslim Brotherhood was in power she noticed a definite trend towards more conservativism but when Sisi took power, that trend has reversed. Of course, this may also suggest that banning burkas would work better than I think in terms of encouraging women to oppose female-oppressive habits. Also Tunisia is fighting hard to modernize Islam, and Saudi recently decided to lift the ban on women driving. As funny as it seems, my brother-in-law thinks (or thought, this was a while ago) that Sisi and Trudeau were similar in goals of pursuing more progressive social values.

I know! Its simply amazing that people do things that are illegal! So following the conversation closely, you might have read this: Oftenwrong: I support a law banning burka and female circumcision. Dialamah: female circumcision is already illegal. Instead of this: Oftenwrong: I support a law banning burka and female circumcision. Dialamah: Female circumcision never happens in Canada because its illegal.

Female circumcision is already illegal.

I disagree; I think exposure to Canadian culture will be enough and that laws imposing how women should dress will backfire. People tend to cling more closely to their precious things if they perceive that something external to them is trying to remove them. I think that explains, in part, why young Muslim women in Canada are increasingly the wearing of the hajib; they aren't oblivious to anti-Muslim sentiment, or how the hijab is viewed, they feel under attack to a certain extent and the hijab is a way of identifying allies amongst the wider society that may seem threatening. I think it would be more effective to let young people rebel against their parents - to decide for themselves that they don't want to wear a long, ugly dress - rather than have them rebel against the state that tells them they can't wear or can't wear.

More like "I would like to create a law to protect the innocent, by leaving them entirely at the mercy of the criminals". I notice that while you say you are against the burka because its a symbol of oppression, you seem entirely unconcerned about the actual oppression of a woman who has to defy either her conscience, her family or the law to appear in public because other people are deciding what is acceptable for her to wear.