dialamah

I could try... Lies, all lies, put out by Liberal media! The United Nations is irrelevant and what they say doesn't matter. Besides, they're all lefties so what do you expect? And look at what (Liberal leader from past era) did! Compared to that guy Harper is a saint! How's that? :-)

It's spelled Sikh. Sorry you lost your candidate, but I don't know why you'd support such an ignorant person, regardless of his ethnicity or political persuasion. Maybe your Green candidate speaks a language you can understand.

He is doing such things. Two niqab-wearing women attacked in the last couple of weeks, thanks to this "issue". Whether he intended such outcomes might be in question, but as he hasn't addressed it in any way to suggest people not attack these women, but continues with another idea to set up a tip line, one has to wonder if it's deliberate or just overwhelmingly stupid.

Trudeau also said that the small business owners who weren't using it as a tax dodge deserved support, including tax breaks, but that tax loopholes that favored the wealthy needed to be addressed. Funny how his support for small business is never mentioned, it's always presented as if he called all small business owners crooks, full stop. Anyway, people do use small business as tax dodge, it's pretty common, even among the not so rich.

I'm new to this forum and not a Harper fan, but my guess is that the evidence presented isn't compelling and that threads with the sole intent of stirring up controversy are discouraged. I anticipate removal of this thread as well.

I'm OK with a bit of passion, especially interspersed with more friendly stuff. So leftie is not going to hurt my feelings. :-)

Wouldn't they be more likely to say undecided, rather than claim an intent to vote for a different party altogether? Also, as the furor over it dies down would these people stop denying their voting intention, so over the next few days the polls will even out?

Maybe, but I'm not persuaded they consider it anything but common sense, and they're more likely to dismiss such claims as lies or exaggerations, so why would they be embarrassed? But I've no better idea so I guess the social desirability theory works as well as any.

No deficit!

Liberal-Green.

Maybe they're using Ouiji boards to weight the different polls?

Divorce is not forbidden, it is frowned upon. People do have the choice, just as people here have the choice to do things other people frown upon. Wear a niqab, for example. In any case, I was specifically speaking of niqab wearing when I said choice was supported. You brought in gays, abortion, divorce etc. I haven't claimed, nor would I, that the average Muslim was as liberal or progressive as the average Westerner. Still, there is a wide range of behaviour and beliefs within both cultures, and the most conservative Christian is not that far removed from the most conservative Muslim.

That long?

So do Christians. What is your point? Incidentally, one of the five brothers is divorced and remarried. Divorce isn't forbidden, it's just frowned upon very strongly.

Yes, I agree they are conservative. But that doesn't mean they don't support choice for other people. Including their daughters. For instance, my sister married into a Muslim family consisting of 5 brothers, all of whom are now married. Of the four sisters-in-law, one is noticeably more devout and wears the hijab whenever she has male relatives in her house and the niqab outside the house. Two other sisters wear the hijab only outside the house. I haven't met the fourth, but judging by the brother she married and her wedding pictures, she's even more relaxed about headdress although she probably would wear at least a scarf over her head when out of the house. My sister dresses in modest Western style, and sometimes includes a headscarf, and sometimes not. All of these women seem to be equally accepted and accommodated by the rest of the family. Obviously, any family of any culture may impose norms on male and female members, but that doesn't mean its a given regardless of what an outsider might think.

It's also possible that they support choice, which is a Canadian value. According to everything I've found - studies and personal stories - choice is actually what most Muslims support, and the women who wear the niqab most often say it is their choice. The assumption that each individual women is only wearing a niqab as a result of oppression is as senseless as assuming every woman in sunglasses has a black eye because her husband beats her.

There's a guy in Vancouver who thinks the same, that if you give someone a home the rest will follow. Problem is that there are an awful lot of people who just figure that helping those less fortunate is 'enabling entitlement' or something like that. Anyway, kudos to Edmonton. I was anti-Insite when it started in Vancouver, but after learning more about it I had to support it. Harper would like to shut it down, though, because I assume for him, saving lives is secondary to punishing people for bad behavior.

Bear Creek Park, 8 am. Today. Too late, sorry. I got the invite yesterday in my email, and I live right there so it would have been pretty convenient if I'd only read the email. Oh well.

You misstate the position. It's not a matter of 'feeling sorry for terrorists bent on killing", it's more that the "Islamic" threat is vastly overstated, and that Harper/Conservatives are running with it to change laws and gain votes. It's unethical. The other day, some Conservative supporter claimed that it was proven Belgium would be 'overrun' by Muslims by 2030, and that Sharia law would be in effect. Ten minutes of looking revealed that: 1. Europe's entire population is about 6% Muslim, including Belgium 2. By 2030, it would be 8% 3. Half or less of Muslims support Sharia law as a 'governing' system, although many of them support it in terms of their personal life 4. Of those that support Sharia law, they do not universally support the more extreme versions of it - stonings, beheadings and the like. 5. Most Muslims could care less what their neighbor believes, and have no interest in imposing their beliefs on anyone else; they will, however, explain their belief to those that are interested and accept those that voluntarily convert. 6. Even if each and very Muslim in that projected 8% were bound and determined to convert the rest of the population, it is ludicrous to think they'd actually succeed. Anyway, seems like every second Conservative has this completely wigged out notion that we're on the verge of being subjugated by an Islamic horde. It's ridiculous. It is true that ISIS is not a nice group (nor is Al-Queda, or Boko Haram), and it's also true that they've already been in existence for years, yet -- look, we're still standing. It's been 14 years since 9/11 - does the States look any more Islamic than it did prior to those attacks? I agree that we should support the countries who are being directly threatened by these groups. Directly threatened means facing an army of thousands. It does not mean a few drug-addled/mentally ill people who attempt some mayhem and are labelled 'terrorists' because they dressed a certain way or repeated a few key words. I believe that anyone who commits a crime on Canadian soil (murder, rape or terror, along with burlgary and drunk driving) should face the full force of the law. I don't think that extra laws need to be made for things that are already illegal. Oh, and not wanting "extra" laws does not automatically translate into "not wanting any laws", so try not to go there.

I can see that being true for some individuals, but not in sufficient numbers to explain the difference in the poll results. I think something else is going on, or maybe a couple of things. Maybe Conservative voters are more willing to answer the phone and stay on the line for the automated directions, precisely because they want the world to know they're voting Conservative. Undecided and "lefties" don't answer or hang up on the automation, where they wouldn't hang up on a voice.

- See more at: http://www.thecanadaguide.com/political-parties#sthash.B7M8HzGb.dpuf http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=862 More on the Christian Alliance church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_and_Missionary_Alliance http://policyoptions.irpp.org/issues/the-age-of-man/adams/ My brother, a devout Christian, posts helpful information on his wall to advise Christians which party comes out ahead on Christian Values, and those posts clearly favor the Conservatives, even as they claim to be neutral.

All other things being equal, if that's what they want to do, they're probably pretty happy. If they're doing it because religion/society says they should, probably not so much.

In April? Are you sure that's the link you wanted to post?

And the 'good' women stayed home, raised the kids, cooked and cleaned. Which probably explains why half of the Conservatives family support budget goes to the one-third of families who follow the script. http://www.gensqueeze.ca/federal_platforms_families

They don't even have to fail on a Charter challenge because 3 out of the 4 things proposed are already covered by existing law; the one not covered is completely irrelevant to how the system is used.