blackbird

I have to agree with Altai on this. Freedom of speech is limited. There are certain laws that restrict it. We must also remember a forum sets it's own rules which can mean there are limits to speech. We cannot insult other people. The question of offending is a complicated question. It depends on a number of things. We have to be careful when making a point that the point if expressed in a way that causes the least offense. If the purpose is to simply offend someone, then that would be wrong.

Whatever your country chooses, I hope it will work out well for you. Only your country can decide what is best for you. Today is Easter and the sun shining this morning. This is a very important day in the christian calender that we personally are celebrating with church this morning and a special dinner later today. Good day!

This article on National Post shows people are divided over what religious practices public schools in B.C. should. The think the School Act says public schools should be secular but some school boards have been negligent in following that law to the letter. Quote Unquote I am opposed to native smudging ceremonies being permitted in public schools. Also oppose so-called "meditation" being allowed. Mediation is supported by the Dalaii Lama group, which is Budhist. Meditation is Budhist or Hindu. I disagree with those that claim it is benign. It is a religious exercise the can I believe move students to forms of budhism or hinduism which is rampant in America. I believe there is a connection between radical environmentalism and eastern religions. There is also a connection between radical environmentalism and smudging ceremonies because native religion has historically been animism. That is a belief that there is spirit or god(s) in all of nature and the material world, animals, bird, fish, plants, and all of creation. This false belief means mother earth must be worshipped and it is elevated above everything else. So I don't want to see religious practices in schools that would somehow lend itself to these beliefs that would harm our political-social structure and place undue emphasis on things at the expense of the growth of the economy and a normal society.

Mulling over this M103 and the new committee to examine Islamophobia. Seems the introduction of this motion and subsequent debates and newspaper articles has generated more opposition to what they are doing than if they had left it alone in the first place. Some things are better left alone. Government cannot tinker with fundamental freedoms without expecting a backlash. Since they brought the motion into parliament, there have been more debates, large protests, thousands of letters and E-mails sent to members of parliament, and talk shows on TV and radio.

Excellent information. We should remind people the word Islamophobia could be defined by breaking it down into it's constituent parts, ie, Islam and phobia. According to the Compact Oxford Canadian Dictionary, a phobia is an abnormal fear. Also an aversion to something. If one has a fear of Islam, it may be justified and therefore not necessarily an abnormal fear. I'm not sure how one would define an abnormal fear. In any case, in a country which has freedom of religion and freedom of expression, I doubt that Islamophobia could be put in law. How does one outlaw a fear of an ideology or religion in a country where everyone is free to believe in what they wish? It's absurd.

Yes, OK. I just read it again. I like the idea of information exchange. I agree.

The situation with NK is a grave concern. I don't recall anything like this in the last 50 years or more. I am praying that there will be no war or military action and that all countries involved will show utmost restraint. NK also needs to stop working toward having nuclear missiles.

Not sure what you mean exactly there.

The police or whatever they were that did the job for United would still be under contract. I don't think United can escape some responsibility. Guess a judge will decide.

I don't think they had the option of sending in mercenaries. It is probably very difficult and complicated to do that. I doubt the U.S. government uses large number of mercenary armed forces. They have their own military and send them where they need to. That isn't done lightly. Sometimes, things go wrong when they send in armed forces as they learned in Mogadishu, Somalia around 1990. So it's not always easy to do that. Read the book by General Boykin who is a retired lieutenant general who spend much of his life in the special forces (similar to navy seals). Book is Never Surrender. He has a Facebook page. He tells about the different assignments they had to go on. They still do that kind of thing. Possibly this ISIS one in Afghanistan was considered too risky to send in special forces. Maybe they decided the bomb was less risky for U.S. forces. Almost zero risk to men.

That makes more sense. So it's not really too much money.

So is speaking against a particular religion or ideology "hate speech"? What is the definition of Islamophobia? Is it referring to speaking against a group of people or does it include speaking against a religion? For example can one be opposed to discrimination against women or certain people? Or will that be Islamophobia? I don't think the word "Islamophobia" can be enshrined in any kind of law but the word is undefined and can be made to apply to whatever one wishes to apply it to.

I will deign to say it was the U.S. military that made the decision to drop the bomb, not necessarily Trump himself, although he may have been asked. At least that is the impression I got from the news.

Mr. Dao was not engaging in unruly behavior. The reason they removed him by force was because they wanted his seat. The fact that he was removed with excessive force is what was illegal his lawyer says. He received serious injuries. That is what was illegal. Airlines do not have a right to do whatever they please with a passenger.

The theory of evolution has been rejected by a number of scientists. I watched a four or five evening slide presentation by Professor Philip Stott on creation versus evolution. Dr. Stott is a noteworthy scientist who once believed in evolution but dismissed it 45 years ago after a lot of scientific consideration. He demonstrated on slides how the mathematical laws of probability make evolution an impossibility. The theory of evolution is based on the claim of random chance processes. It claims that over a period of time, the right atoms and molecules will come together to form the building blocks of life which will then eventually advance to higher life forms. But the problem with this is Prof. Stott said is there is not enough time (in terms of billions of years or more) for the right combinations to come together to form life. He likened it to giving a monkey a typewriter and letting him type randomly until he finally types the complete works of Shakespeare. How long would it take. Well the Professor made some calculations and found that it is essentially an impossibility because there is not enough time available to complete the project by chance. The same with the forming of life. It couldn't happen that way because the chance of it randomly happening would take an unreasonable amount of time. For all intents and purposes, it's just not a possibility that it could happen that way. Another thing professor Stott pointed out is the problem with the big bang theory. The universe is a very orderly mass of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. According to the big bang theory, there was at the beginning an initial explosion and the universe came out of that. The problem is an explosion produces disorder or chaos, not order. So that means it could not have been an explosion at the beginning. The universe is very orderly. Also, the big bang theory still does not answer the question of where everything came from. Scientists have theories of course, but they cannot answer the question of where the matter or universe came from.

Just saw on CNN that the passenger received a broken nose, lost two teeth, received a concussion, and received injuries to his sinus. He will require reconstructive surgery. His lawyer says he came from Vietnam in 1975 and what happened to him was more horrifying than what happened to him in Vietnam. His lawyer says the excessive force use on him was illegal. United Airlines claims they will make changes so this will never happen again.

No. I just heard on the news today the lawyer for the passenger dragged off said the airline police at used excessive force in dragging the passenger off and he said it was illegal. The man received serious injuries, possible broken jaw and other damage in his face, possibly sinus damage. He is in hospital and may require surgery;. Also damaged foot. Lawyer said it was illegal how he was removed. Working on a lawsuit now.

This is exactly the kind of thing that concerns Canadians about Muslim immigration. It is just a matter of time before this kind of thing starts in Canada, if it already hasn't. If there is not already laws to prevent people from imposing Sharia law on other people, there should be. Instead of M103, they should work on a law to prevent this from happening in Canada. Maybe we should let some of the Conservative candidates know about this. They could come up with a campaign promise to deal with it.

Canada's anti-Islamophobia committee will begin meetings next month. http://debatepost.com/2017/04/13/canadas-anti-islamophobia-study-will-start-next-month/

Asylum seekers coming into Canada receive up $1419 cash per month. http://debatepost.com/2017/04/10/alysum-seekers-crossing-into-canada-receive-up-to-1419-cash-per-month/

You're using a completely different set of circumstances. As a judge I would say inadmissible evidence. Award the passenger damages and expenses. This was simply for the convenience of the airline company. They should have found another solution.

It also depends how they were treating the kids in their everyday life. If they were overbearing, that is no good. The article doesn't tell how they were treated so it's impossible to know. If it was just these three things, that shouldn't warrant shutting the place down, but if there is more to it than that, it would be a different matter.

It's on a Global News page.

I am very disappointed in our Liberal (and NDP occasionally) governments in B.C. They have allowed the real estate prices in Vancouver to skyrocket for decades and ordinary people can no longer afford a home in one of Canada's greatest cities. The lowest price home is around one million dollars. Scandalous what politicians allowed to happen. Now we are reaping the consequences which you describe above as one example. They have no interest in being Canadian and assimilating.

The Vancouver real estate tax is too little too late. The house prices are up around a million dollars for the cheapest house. It should have been dealt with 40 years ago.