?Impact

A group of 100,000 Muslim scholars around the world. A group that encourages dialogue. A group that is perfectly legal in this country. Again I repeat the linkage of Canada to terrorism via the UN is far more tenable.

Were did you pull that information from? I explained the weak linkage that is in the media, and you suddenly say he founded the mosque. That is complete BS.

Read the section quoted. It is hate speech, demanding the murder of homosexuals. That hate material exists in almost every church in this country. If you are going to condemn a mosque because of some weak link then you should condemn all churches for the much stronger link.

When did he attend this mosque? When was he in Canada? When did he support this mosque? Is he even aware this mosque exists? Your linkage is like calling Canada a terrorist country because we have membership in the UN.

What media reported it was his mosque. As I pointed out above, the only link the media has been able to establish is that an Imam at the mosque happens to be a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, an international group that promotes dialogue. What Iman, and what is his doctrine?

We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. A report card however is not prescriptive, we need some good ideas and proper execution to move things forward. For a starter, we need to clean up the criminal code as was demonstrated by the case in Alberta last week where the judge ruled on a section that was declared unconstitutional on Mulroney's watch. Perhaps automation could help address some of the cost and efficiency issues, although that report card is way too high level to even begin to suggest how. My understanding of the legal system is that it is just a paper nightmare. Simplification however is the biggest issue. We have politicians wanting millions of boutique laws to buy votes, when what we really need is to clean up the mess to begin with.

While having nothing to do with the topic of this OP, the benefits and pitfalls of participating in the AIIB would indeed make a good topic for discussion.

How could any Prime Minister ever attend any church, ever? They are filled with hate material, and that is provable. Open up the bible to Leviticus 20:13, and it commands you to kill homosexuals. Any Prime Minister who ever visited any church is a full supporter of that according to your logic. I ask you again, what is the connection of Yusuf al-Qarasawi to this mosque. Can you even demonstrate that he is aware it exists?

I ask you what is the link, and you drum up this garbage? How is this his mosque? Answer the question, and don't make totally stupid allegations.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

How, please describe the connection. Has Yusuf al-Qarasawi ever set foot in this mosque? Has Yusuf al-Qarasawi ever set foot in Canada? Has any organization Yusuf al-Qarasawi created been declared illegal in Canada? I believe the only connection I am aware of is that an Imam at this mosque happens to be a member of a perfectly legal organization in Canada that was started by Yusuf al-Qarasawi ( International Union for Muslim Scholars).

Trump clearly has mental health issues. This is not just me saying it, psychiatrists have said so as well. When will he be properly examined?

What does that have to do with the topic of the OP? Start your own topic on religion, and we can compare Orthodox Jews to Muslims if you want to, because they have the same practices. If you want to bring politics into it, then is far worse to be spending tens of millions of Canadian taxpayer money to haul a bunch of Orthodox Jewish rabbis half way around the world and serenade them in a big love fest than it is to accept an invite to speak at a local Ottawa event.

Let us be clear, we have absolutely nothing from the Harper era to compare to, and they didn't release anywhere near the detail the Liberals have let alone what they are crying for. I don't agree with these expenses, l think they are outrageous, but making unsubstantiated claims about the Harper era is a sign of partisan desperation.

We don't have a detailed accounting, so it could be anything. I suspect the bulk is living expenses for several weeks until the new staffers found and moved into a place. If the closing was 6 weeks (very conservative estimate) on a house, that would be $12,600 on hotel alone ($300/night for downtown Ottawa). Several trips back and forth, bringing in family, etc. It quickly adds up. Moving expenses would be about $10-$20k for a family across the country, depending on the size of the family and stuff they have, and no not airfreight. I don't understand the real-estate costs being included, but if that is the case then that could easily be $15-$40k.

It was released last week.

When is Trump going to release a real medical report, not the marketing nonsense he had someone cook up while he was waiting in his limo outside? When is Trump going to release his taxes that he said he would?

Yes, it does sound over the top. Who was responsible for setting up these ridiculous rules in 2008?

I doubt those vast hydro resources would be so easily given up.

There is a big difference between banning use, and making illegal. The point however is that we have criminalized the absurd. We should be discouraging people from using drugs, not throwing people in jail.

Will Quebec give that same ultimatum to it's municipalities? Certainly fewer will leave than when I was a youngster, but there will still be some.

That mistranslation has been well discussed in many places if you just look. Only the Bible explicitly tells women to cover their heads.

Not sure how you proved anything. Your translation is not correct. "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their khimar. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed." 24:31 khimar mean a cover, not a headcover. It could be a dress, blanket, anything. What normally shows? It could be the hands, face, hair, (lower) arms, (lower) legs, etc. Yes, there are some that have corrupted the meaning, but the Quran does not say headcover, that is clear.

Do you mean: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. - 1 Corinthians 11:4-7