dialamah

That doesn't work. If you aren't scared of Islam and Muslims, then you support terrorism and acts of brutal barbarity.

Do the conservatives?

@Boges Clearly I saw something entirely different in the program than you did. @overthere We could also save money by eliminating taxpayer support for Canadian productions carried by Bell and Shaw. Do you think that's a good idea?

I watched Still Standing tonite. Fort McMurray was featured and some of the struggles individuals went through, along with the way they are healing from the fire. I like that kind of programming, I think it helps create pride in our country, a feeling of conection and patriotism. I like Rick Mercer for the same reason. I would be very sad if we lost CBC.

Absolutely the best kind.

I've read the books and seen the movies. The bad guys are clearly bad, the good guys are clearly good and the littlest guy saves the world in the end.

Were they made?

I have said more than a few times the niqab also makes me uncomfortable, so I am not about to dismiss the feelings of theae people. I agree with the sense of dissonance, with finding it hard to recognize them as people. I would call what those people felt more like compassion, empathy and concern. But please note that along with those feelings they didn't also call the women barbaric, ignorant, terrorists in all but behavior. They didn't make assumptions about how the women felt about gays or apostates, or express the opinion that they would kill either if given a chance. That is why I consider some here Islamophobic and/or xenophobic, but would not assume the same about the people who expressed their feelings about the niqab and burka.

They really need to keep their fatwas focused on condemning terrorism, not on progressive efforts by other Muslims.

Between 800 - 1100 AD, Islam was the center of research and scientific discovery. We benefit today with Arabic numerals, algebra and algorithms among others. They also studied the universe, which is why so many stars have ended up with Arabic names. In 1100, that all stopped. Why? Because a follower of Islam decided that all glory should be given to Allah, that mathematics was the work of the devil. So, scientific investigation stopped and we see where Islam is today. In the 21st century, there is a significant push to teach 'intelligent design' in the schools of America and to present evolution as a theory against which creationism holds equal validity. The anti-science movement has become a problem that is killing people, especially children, as "natural remedies" are chosen over medicine and vaccines are considered poison. The States, formerly a powerhouse of scientific advancement, now has at it's helm people who are scientifically illiterate and dismissive of science in general. I don't trust God, whether he is called Lord, Allah or Yaweh, because he holds people back - to their detriment. Magic instead of knowledge, myths over truth, judgment and oppression over tolerance and freedom - that is the legacy of religion. No religion is free from this; given power, it's first order of business is to eliminate opposition, especially ideas that contradict their myths. Those who claim that Christianity is 'different' ignore history and they also ignore the example in the States where the current "Christian" administration is following in the path of Islam, 1000 years ago, attacking science and scientific institutions. Notwithstanding the fact that many religious people are decent, loving, tolerant and pro-science, I sincerely hope there comes a day when humanity leaves every form of "God" in the dust.

Isn't this the same report that has a higher percentage of Muslims claiming pride in Canada than do non-Muslim Canadians? And isn't that the part of the survey that you claim Muslims are lying about, since as far as you are concerned a woman can't both wear a head-covering and be proud to be Canadian.

So the women who choose to wear the niqab or hijab in Canada don't exist or can't be accommodated because there are women who are forced to wear it? Is that what you are saying?

How is the choice of "head covering" not serving Canada? Consider all the people who wear turbans; they seem to be pretty damn successful economically and politically.

I get it, Argus. You would deny people the opportunity to live a better life because what they wear offends you.

Oh I thought you were saying that there should be no niqab-wearing women in Canada. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

Even more so, this is about *your* comfort level, not female oppression. You say: "I don't want to see them here, and so I don't even care to give them the opportunity to learn a freer and less oppressive way of life. They either conform to what I want, or they stay out of my sight". Their oppressors are very glad that you are so distressed about these women's lot in life that you would refuse them a safe place to learn that oppression does not need to be a fact of their life. Good on ya, they say.

They have the freedom in Canada to either wear it or not. Telling them they *must* remove their face covering or go back to their country also removes their freedom. You can claim you are doing it it 'for them', because it's a symbol of oppression, but in reality it's for yourself - you are uncomfortable seeing a woman with her face covered and you have decided that it's up to her to conform to your comfort. In those countries where hijab or niqab is a requirement for women, the women are also told 'it's for their own good', because other people (men) are uncomfortable with women who show their hair or their face or too much skin and so it's up to her to conform to their comfort. If you want to address female oppression in Islam, you can't do it by oppressing in the opposite direction. You can do it by providing an environment where women are free to choose, and then you give them the time and space to make that choice and respect the choice they make, even if you don't like it.

Women from Syria - perhaps because they want to wear their veils and not get bombed at the same time. Women from other places - perhaps because they like the idea that in Canada they have the freedom to do what they want, whilst in their home country they do not. What does the number of mosques have to do with anything? Are veiled women wandering around your neighborhood, unable to fit into the local mosque?

The oft-repeated claim that NDP are bad economic stewards is a myth. A 2013 UBC study demonstrated that relative fiscal management was moderately better under the NDP than the Liberals, when compared to other provinces. The Mike Harcourt Government in particular out-performed the Liberals, as well as the governments led by Clark, Miller and Dosanjh. In 2012, the Business Council of BC published a study comparing decade-by-decade economic performance spanning 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. What the UBC and the Business Council of BC studies both acknowledge is that factors external to a government also affects overall economic performance. A simplistic "NDP are bad, Liberals are good" ignores facts, history and the realities of managing an economy that can be buffeted by forces entirely outside the control of the government of the day.

It's a shame for Taxme this isn't scientific, else he could just start giving young couples white objects for the bedroom and voila! Caucasian babies everywhere!

There are about 1182. Maybe you should try some research before mindlesly repeating what fear-mongering sites say.

Nope. The clause clearly specifies a very limited circustance that does not apply to Muslim women. But people prefer to believe non-factual information that supports their fear and bias. Consequently we have Sharia law hysteria if someone mentions a study and Islamophobia in the same sentence and now those people are only too happy to believe a false report from the Rebel that there is a special 'photo' law for Muslims who are applying for a gun license. Screw facts and critical thinking.

Anyone can apply for anything under any pretext, doesn't mean they'll get it.

The RCMP is not a college. And yes, if there is a photo requirement and they refuse the photo, they don't get a license - the belief has to be an integral part of the religion, not an individual determination. The gun license photo exemption was implemented decades ago for a Christian religious group that was well-known for it's rejection of modern technology. Even so, more recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against that group when it came to photos for driver's licenses based on the need for security among the wider society. So we have these facts: The gun photo exemption has nothing to do with Muslims; It has been around for decades as an accommdation to Christian religious groups who believe having their picture taken at all is a sin; There is no widely practiced belief in Islam that having one's own photo taken is a sin; Muslim women must bare their face for licenses and passports; there is no religious exemption for them and that accommodation it has even been eroded for the Hutterites and Mennonites; If a Muslim woman tried to use the exemption to get a gun license, she would fail because there is nothing in Islam that forbids picture taking. But the Rebel, who broke the story, presented it as "for Muslims" and authorities bending over out of PC concerns which is completely false. By the way, our laws were not 'changed' for the niqab wearing woman at that citizenship ceremony. There was no law that stated 'face must be bare during citizenship ceremony'. Rather, the right to religious accommodation where there was no threat to public security was upheld. She still had to bare her face privately prior to the ceremony for identification and that satisfies the 'security' requirement. She would also have to bare her face for her passport photo, and driver's license and gun license if she applies for those. I don't like the niqab either, but the narrative of special treatment by authorities and changing laws to appease Muslims is simple fear-mongering.