dialamah

God doesn't seem to be even as helpful as America could be, given the number of cases and deaths Iran has experienced. When will people give up on the notion that there's a God cares about them at all? https://www.aa.com.tr/en/latest-on-coronavirus-outbreak/iran-coronavirus-death-toll-rises-to-1-685/1774858

Do they say why?

I'm in Surrey. I love my little place, it's got a small yard so I'm not stuck inside four walls if we get to total lockdown here. But I think it's value will drop, and perhaps my parent's place will increase in value. It's not remote, but rural and on acreage, so easy to maintain "social distance" with room to grow stuff and raise food animals. Interesting times, that's for sure.

Different societies and cultures operate differently, so the measures you advocate for would not be a guarantee of success for Canads, or perhaps any Western culture, because personal freedoms and individualism are highly valued, a difference which is pointed out in your link. "Kwong does see possible barriers to Canada adopting a similar approach, like chronic under-funding of public health here and a populace less at ease with government control than some east-Asian societies. “I can say this because I’m (ethnic) Asian but they’re generally pretty obedient people,” he said. “I find that in a lot of Western countries there’s this philosophy of individualism.” "

My favorite part is watching the people onscreen with him. Sometimes they clearly transmit their inner thoughts.

This link details where the virus came from early on in BC. 5 from China, late January - they do not seem to have passed it on. From early February on, many from Iran; that seems to have resulted in some community transmission. A few from Egypt, a few from Europe and India. So for BC at least, it looks like an earlier ban from China wouldn't have done much good, but a travel ban from Iran might have. Although, I don't think we can actually ban our own citizens, can we?

Good one, WCM. Oh, you were serious!

You mean people demonizing Muslims as being fanatics and terrorists, claiming they don't mean "all Muslims" and then accusing a poster of preferring to behead people, because the poster is Muslim. If you were a Muslim man, Argus, you'd be the type to call women who didn"t cover whores and claim they deserved being raped, and being stoned if they were raped outside of marriage. You'd be the type to support jail or death for gays and apostates, and driving Jews out of Isreal. Intolerant, xenophobic, arrogant people such as yourself are what makes this world so inhumane, regardless of culture, religion or race.

I've been wondering about that, given that this thread has been allowed while other threads are shut down after much less in the way of insulting and flaming. I think moderating is a difficult and thankless task, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about someone based only on one aspect that I can see. But it's weird, imo. And I'm not claiming to be any better than anyone here when it comes to letting my emotions overrule my better judgement, but when comments implying someone is in favor of decapitation because they are Muslim is allowed to stand, I really wonder about the bias of the moderator.

@Charles Anthony I do not understand why you'd let this type of garbage comment remain on this forum.

You know nothing about the training I've had in reconciliation, so your description of that is based entirely on your own ignorance.

Doubling down on your ignorance, not surprised really.

The Provincial Ministry I work with is very involved in reconciliation; we are required to take training and apply the concepts daily. Your "garnering" is so far off track, its laughable. You should consider knowing what you are talking about before bleating about what it means.

Khadr agreed to an eight-year sentence with no credit for eight years already served and the possibility of a transfer to Canada after a minimum of one year and parole eligibility after three years Wkipedia. the plea deal added only another eight years to the eight Mr. Khadr had already spent in Guantanamo, and the chance to be sent to Canada, the country of his birth, to serve most of the remaining sentence. Globe and Mail, Feb 28 2013 So yeah, transfer back to Canada was an inducement for his guilty plea.

If the goal was to get him back to Canada, and the only way to do that was for him to plead guilty, why would his lawyers advice him otherwise? As a lawyer, I'm sure you are aware how often people are convicted after they've been pressured into a guilty plea in exchange for guaranteed less/no jail time. "Proving" guilt through trial is not as common as having people admit guilt in exchange for lighter sentence. My son, after two years of pressure by his own lawyer, restrictions on his freedom (not even in jail, let alone in Guantanamo), bankruptcy and not being able to see his kids had him willing to take the deal offered - he was willing to accept a criminal record and a few days in jail to relieve the pressure and uncertainty, and so he could see his kids again. Luckily for him, the prosecutor changed, he got a new lawyer, the two talked, the new prosecutor realized there was no evidence and his case was dismissed. So don't pretend that a guilty plea, given in exchange for a "deal" is the same as proving someone is guilty. I can understand how someone, having no experience with the criminal "justice" system, believing nobody would admit guilt if they were innocent, but not someone claiming to be a lawyer.

It's your precious environment too, which you'll perhaps realize when it's gone.

Interesting that it's the most damning story they had him plead guilty to, offering him transfer to Canada as inducement.

Clearly you either haven't read or you've chosen to ignore what I've written, so I won't waste my time with you.

You're right, I misread it. Nontheless, my opinion is not "fringe" with about 40% of Canadians agreeing. That's more than enough to elect a majority government, so hardly "fringe". You were the one claiming popularity as a standard for morality when you claimed my opinion was held by a "militant fringe". You bring up Hitler and Nazis; I invoke Godwin's Law, which declares your argument invalid and ends the discussion.

Ipsos poll shows 77 per cent of respondents feel abortion should be permitted. "Among those in favour of abortion rights in Canada, just over half (53 per cent) said the procedure should be permitted whenever a woman decides she wants it, while one in four (24 per cent) favoured some limits." Looks like I'm in the majority.

My views are actually the majority in Canada. These are rare and aren't carried out on healthy fetuses. This is a made up issue by the militant religious right-wing fringe.

Really? Refusing medication that would save or prolong a child's life or an adult's life is "passive neglect?". I disagree; I think its choosing who will live or die depending on affordability. It's sad, very sad, for those who lose people they love. But it's not really possible to keep everyone alive forever, or even how long we'd like to. In the same way, it's a nice idea that every fetus should be born, and once born, be kept alive as long as possible, regardless of financial and emotional cost. But it's not practical and some have to die, as sad as that is. I don't have the heart to judge a woman who must decide if that child will die before birth or after. I can't imagine carrying a daily reminder in my body of the grief and pain that await me in two or three months time just because someone else thinks I should 'just in case' the child does better than expected. It would be an absolutely horrendous experience.

This topic is about late term abortions, which are almost exclusively due to severe fetal abnormalities, and/or threat to mother's health/life.