blackbird

The problem is if Trudeau brings in a law, a judge can sentence anyone to a jail term and/or fine. Unless you have a lot of money to appeal and challenge it, there is not much you can do except go to jail. Also, there is no telling which way an appeal court will rule these days and you can't count on the Supreme Court to stand up for freedom of speech. When there is a law forbidding any speech against Islam and their side has lawyers arguing it is "Islamophobia" and against the law, you might have a hard time proving you have the right to freedom of speech. Doesn't matter that much what the Charter says if the law says something different and the judges give more weight to the law because of political correctness and powerful lobbies and lawyers on Trudeau's side.

Heard that Trudeau is bringing M103 back to Parliament March 21 for second reading instead of waiting until April. Trying to rush it through?

So how do you explain the videos that were taken of the planes flying into the twin towers? How do you explain all the evidence that the planes were hijacked and passengers reported on their cell phones that they were hijacked? How do you explain the plane that flew into the pentagon? How do you explain the plane that crashed into the ground after some passengers fought the hijackers and a woman passenger phoned a relative on her cell phone and told what was happening? How do you explain the authorities have identified who each hijacker was and traced their lives up to the day of the attack? How do you explain the fact some took pilot training to learn how to fly the passenger jets in a basic way?

This was not a strong win for Rutte's party. They actually went from 41 seat to 31 seats, a loss of ten seats. So they hold 31 in a 150 seat parliament, or about 20% of the seats. Wilders party, the PVV, increased from about 12 to 19 seats, a gain of about 7 seats. Two other parties hold 19 seats each as well. The clash with Turkey's president appears to have helped Rutte in the last days of the election, as he was able to rebuff the Turkish president. Was this orchestrated by Turkey to affect the election? Who knows. The next interesting election will be in France in the near future. Marine Le Penne, right of centre, has a lot of support. She wishes to restrict immigration but is not talking as tough as Wilders was. She may have a better chance.

I agree with Steven Blaney. He was a cabinet minister in the Harper government and knows a lot about how the system works. I'm not sure how anybody can argue that Canada should keep someone here when they have been convicted of terrorism and have dual citizenship. It only makes sense to strip them of their Canadian citizenship and send them to the other country they hold citizenship in, instead of spending a hundred thousand dollars a year to keep them in a Canadian prison for 25 years and then having to put them under surveilance at great expense. I think Canada has deported people for far less reason, for instance if they lied on their immigration application.

First of all, there are already over a million Muslims in Canada, many of who would be Canadian citizens. I presume you're not talking about them. Secondly, for those crossing the border lately, we have an immigration system that works by laws already in place. The migrants coming across the border must go through the existing immigration system process. They can't be just shipped out. They have to go through the refugee determining process and can appeal the outcome. It could a year or more for each one. But that system can only be changed by changing the law.

Watch the TV news tonight or tomorrow for the results of the election in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders is the leader of the Freedom Party and is expected to make political gains today in the election.

People that vandalize Mosques and insult Muslims on the bus or street are doing a disservice to the rest of us. They are giving them more of an excuse for M103. A lot of people can't see the difference between insulting Muslims and a respectful dialog on the religion. Those are the kind of people we need to watch out for. They lump everyone into the same lot. I think that is what the Libs and NDP are doing. Just realized I am getting away from the subject of Brexit.

You're getting away from the topic which is Brexit. Nobody said anything should be done with people in Canada. Just treat them respectfully like everyone else.

Muslims on a person friendship basis would be great friends I am sure. However, that is not the point. You can still be friends of Muslims and not agree with Islam or want your country to become an Islamic republic or some kind. I don't think the individual Muslims you know even think in terms of taking over a country. The issue is not personal friendships. It is what the Quran teaches and what some Imams preach. You can't judge the what is going on in some countries in Europe or judge Islam just from you good Muslim friendships. I wouldn't mind having some Muslim friends but don't think there are any around here.

I live in western Canada (B.C.) and am aware that Quebec and Ontario have most of the votes. They have the largest population so that is how the system works. So the answer is yes, I go along with the principle of one man/woman, one vote. We in the west might not be happy with the results always. But at least we get to participate in a democratic system. We live with the outcome, whether it be good of bad. Scotland should live with the results. I think the separatist party is using the Brexit result to try to get a referendum to separate, which should be no great surprise.

It might be divisive but democracy is the system we have. There is no better system.

If they don't get their way, they are going to pick up their marbles and leave. waaaaa The majority has spoken.

The UK Parliament has approved proceeding with Brexit. That was the main hurdle. I don't think anything is going to stop Brexit now. Scotland cannot hold another referendum on separation unless the UK parliament approves and the British PM has said no to another referendum.

Answer is quite simple. There were only two candidates to choose from. In the minds of many christians Hillary Clinton was not a good option. She supports policies that are basically anti christian. Trump may not be a perfect candidate but he did make promises that resonate with many christian beliefs far more than the Democrats. One example is Hillary is a strong supporter of abortion which has killed something like eight million unborn babies in the last number of years. Trump said he is pro life and opposes abortion. He promised to appoint a pro life judge to the supreme court and that is what he is doing. The general anti christian stance of the Obama administration has turned many to the only other choice there is, that is, Trump in hopes that America's christian values will receive more respect. If you're not a christian and don't believe in these values, then you will more than likely prefer Hillary or some other democrat. Christians do not see Trump is the "devil". That is far fetched hate speech.

Conservative candidate Steven Blaney said: Do you think a terrorist who swears an Oath of Citizenship and then murders innocent people should be allowed to retain his Canadian citizenship? Well, Liberal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen thinks so. Indeed, Justin Trudeau and his Liberals want to return Canadian citizenship to Zakaria Amara, a convicted terrorist. I disagree with him. I strongly believe citizenship revocation has to be an option for convicted terrorists holding dual citizenship who have come to our country to kill Canadians. That is why in 2015, our Conservative government passed bill C-24 which allows for the revocation of citizenship for those immigrant citizens who have committed acts of terrorism. Justin Trudeau and his liberals are about to change that. The first duty of any government is to keep its citizens safe, not to seek fame and be adored. --Steven Blaney, MP What do you think?

What's wrong with that?

I'm not sure how you define a private school. If the school is under the control of a denomination or church, people generally do not think of it as a public school. It is a church-run school, although they must teach a certain minimum department of education curriculum. Because they are classified as a "catholic school", they are free to teach catholicism as well as the required curriculum. If it were classified as a public school, it would not be free to teach one particular religion. There is a distinct difference between a catholic school and a public school. Do you understand the difference? Also, you said you check off which school system you want your taxes to go to. So one is the Catholic school system and the other is what is normally called the public school system. Trying to call the catholic school system the public school system doesn't make sense.

Some people posting here do not understand the difference between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and are just confusing the meaning. Anti mean against. Therefore the word anti-semitism means against Jews. Phobia means a fear of. The word Islamophobia means a fear of Islam. So anti-semitism is against a people; Islamophobia is a fear of a religion. It is not an opposition to a people. Some try to equate it with anti-semitism but this is not correct. There is a difference between opposing a race or group of people and opposing a religion or ideology because you disagree with it's teachings. Anti-semitism has existed in Europe for about 2000 years. There is a book called "God's First Love" by Friedrich Heer (Christians and Jews over two thousand years) This is an extremely detailed book of what has been happening in Europe during the past 2000 years culminating in the Haulocaust.

Catholic schools are a form of private religious type of school even if they receive public funding. They can't be considered as public school. So again they have the right to teach only catholicism and can refuse to allow other religions to be taught or practiced in their schools. People get public and catholic schools confused I think. They are two different entities. Didn't the government in Ontario or Quebec sign an agreement with the catholic church authorities way back in history to provide funding for them to operate catholic schools? This creates a strange situation where catholic schools in some provinces where the most common school is catholic, but isn't there still public schools in the same cities? I think people in Quebec or Ontario who do not want to send their kids to a catholic school have the right to send them to a public school. Is that correct? Or how does it work?

I should have said religion has no place in public schools. Private schools can practice their religion. If people want religion in school, they have the option of sending their kids to a private school. Catholic schools are private schools. Catholic schools must still be considered as a private school even though it may receive public funding and you vote for the catholic school board. It might even be the most common school in your area. But it still is a private school and does not have to accommodate the practice of non-catholic religious exercises.

Not sure what you mean. I believe no religion should be accommodated in public schools whether you wish to call it prayer for all students or private prayer clubs. Neither should be permitted on public school property. If you provide public property for one religion, then you have no argument for not providing it for any other religion. That is not the function of public schools, which taxpayers are paying for. Yes, I will discuss issues around culture. I don't see this however as a question of culture. It is a question of what public schools should be used for. Since it is no longer possible to have christian prayer or teaching in public schools, certainly no other religion should be permitted to operate on the premises either.

No.

Trinity Western University is a private christian university. They have that right because we have freedom of religion in the charter of rights. Secondly, the law students which graduate are being barred from practicing law in Ontario by the Law Society in Ontario. In my opinion, this law society is not respecting the right of these students to practice their freedom of religion and become lawyers. If somebody doesn't like what these students have agreed to and believe in, they are free to go to any other lawyer they choose. I think the law societies in B.C. and Nova Scotia also tried to bar the students but provincial courts overruled the law societies. From what I have heard, this will probably go to the Supreme Court.

I think public schools have banned christian prayer and distribution of Gideon bibles from their premises. Years ago in Canada, there were public schools where christian bible stories were taught or read and christianity was given a prominent place. With the gradual immigration of many non-christian peoples, people started to demand that out of respect for our immigrant friends, christianity would stop being taught in schools or given any special recognition. That is where we are at now. So why should school boards in London Ontario have turned gymnasiums into mosques on Fridays? I don't agree that people have that right. There is a limit to rights. Because of the very reason that Canada is made up of many cultures and religions, we cannot favour one over another in a public institution. Everyone should understand that and respect the principle of public institutions being secular. That is another reason why someone's face should not be covered in the citizenship ceremony. There are certain things that define Canada. Favouring one religion in public institutions is not something we should acquiesce to. Public schools, universities, courtrooms, and anywhere police and government serves the public should operate in a secular way.