betsy

First it was the medical drama, "House." Now it's this June Cleaver something.....you on to sitcoms now?

Domestic engineer? What is that? You mean, someone who drives trains around the house? The boss around the house? Someone who coerce the help? Isn't that too oppressive?

Do you think there is no wife beating? I guess taking an accurate survey is almost impossible with this community. Most probably it will be like trying to spot a victim of white slavery....the victims are afraid to talk.

No, I do not equate Muslim with terrorism, and to suggest such a thing is personally insulting to me. I only brought it up because it happened to be in the link that YOU provided, and because some people are STILL in denial that Muslims are condemning terrorism, despite all of the other links I have provided on other threads. Whether some people are in denial or not that Muslims are condemning terrorism...or whether some people are in denial that terrorism is not faith-based and had only come to be because of Bush....this is not the thread for it. I am talking of Sharia Law.....being practised in Canada. I want to have other input or viewpoint about this. It would be nice to hear what the Gay advocates.....or the Womens' Right advocates in this forum think about having the Sharia Law in Canada. Do they agree or what?

Do you have proof of this? Or do you simply go by stereotypes? Isn't post #16 explicit enough? Anyway....you are obviously claiming otherwise....or refuting. Substantiate your claim. Do you have any proof at all?

Is there an undercurrent of violence in this situation? I read the link, and it didn't say anything about violence, which is why I asked for more information on this subject. You asked for it...and there it is. Right above your post.

But we are not talking of terrorism, are we? You seem to equate the mere mention of the word, "Muslim"....to terrorism.

I can't really blame the Muslims for wanting to bring in their way of life in Canada. Hey, who wouldn't try to get away with things....if there is a possibility that it could happen? If you can have the wrist....why not see if you could also get the elbow? But what I can't understand is why Mr McGuinty...would EVEN CONSIDER....such a thing! McGuinty's first reaction should've been, "HA-HA-HA!" followed by...."YOU GOTTA BE JOKING ME, ABDUL!" It seems I make light of this....but in reality, it isn't funny at all. I only hope the reason he even entertained the idea was because he didn't know anything about Sharia Law. That's not a great excuse because he shouldn't consider offering a parallel or integrated legal system (using the term loosely by western standards when referring to Sharia Law), into our society. That's not a great excuse but it's better than any alternative. More likely it was only a political attempted appeasement that he wisely considered unwise.

Here is an explanation what Sharia Law is: "Islam is often in the news these days. News articles that relate to Islam sometimes refer to the Shariah. What is the Shariah? The Shariah is the Islamic Sacred Law which was developed hundreds of years ago by Islamic jurists using the Koran and hadith (remembrances about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did during the time he was alive) as guideposts. The Shariah outlines a complete way of life in a legal framework which tells you how to do everything from how to pray to how to go to the bathroom. What does the Shariah law actually state? Here are some examples of Shariah law: 1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation; 2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar; 3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death; 4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet; 5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man; 6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father; 7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman; 8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house; 9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim; 10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women; 11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring; 12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”; 13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death; 14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand; 15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act; 16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation; 17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed; 18. Laughing too much is forbidden; 19. Musical instruments are unlawful; 20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden; 21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory; 22. Slavery is permitted; 23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam; 24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and, 25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad). In order to demonstrate to you that the above examples of Shariah law are real and valid, I will excerpt below the relevant legal clauses relating to each of the above numbered headings. First, I will repeat the heading. Then, I will excerpt the relevant legal clauses." http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

Wouldn't it be something if the pro-war suddenly used this song as a "war song?" You know how during WWII, inspiring and morale-boosting songs became a big part in rallying people together? One of the singers was Vera Lynn (I got her album).

I notice that a lot of times, the conservatives provide at least something....a link or anything other than personal opinions...to substantiate or stress or prove a point. Yet, if you go through all the hot issues all over this forum, you'd hardly see anything backing up the statements of a lot of lefties. They make big claims with nothing to back it up....even when being pressed to produce something to substantiate it.....and they expect you to take their words as fact. To some of them, anecdotal evidence is enough. "My pizza guy is great. He makes the best vegetarian pizza in town. His shop is so busy. Just try to make an order on a Friday night. Therefore...he and all pizza guys, has no time for jihad." "Unless if jihad is another new type of pizza. or donair."

So despite the ruling of McGuinty, Sharia Law can still be practiced within the Muslim faith? So Muslim women in Canada are bound to be under the Sharia Law?

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake). If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it. I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women. Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one. Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf. Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance. Thank you, Rue.

Newbie had provided several links from another thread regarding another discussion. I clciked on the said site, and curiously looked into some other articles they got. One particular article grabbed me. I tried to copy and paste, but couldn't. So I copied by hand the particular segment that piqued me. It is that last sentence provided below that is of particular interest. "JOINT STATEMENT ON SHARIA LAW DECISION IN ONTARIO Our organization, which collectively represent thousand of Muslims across Canada are shocked and dismayed at the decision to discontinue the use of faith-based arbitration in Ontario. We believe that the decision of Mr McGuinty is a step backwards. Muslim faith-based mediation and dispute resolution will continue in Muslim communities across Canada." http://www.macnet.ca/national/index.php Is this "faith-based mediation and dispute resolution," the dreaded Sharia Law?

Btw Jerry, I notice you're experiencing the same problem. <sigh> Not only does he argue in circles, he misunderstands in circles as well. Over and over and over and over again.... Who's on first base? No. Who's on second base.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much. Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it! It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard. Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck. But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!! Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather. Ooops. I wasn't referring to you Jerry. I agree with you. Lowering standards just so to qualify is actually an insult to women. Patronizing...doing the "little women" a favor...let's lower the standards, boys...so they'll have a chance.

Some readers will just have to dig a little deeper. Apparently they can't understand the conversation going on here..... ...or perhaps it's not misunderstanding ....but simply, not agreeing. Resorting to unconstructive criticism won't validate their arguments.

Yeah, the feminists are saying that it IS about gender....if they are saying there is an imbalance of power between genders. What the feminists don't seem to realize...or don't want to admit is that..... The delineation of power distribution is not between men and women. It is between those who have been able to gain power...and those who have not. We see lots of men....as well as lots of women....who were not able to gain power. If the feminists admit that it's not a power imbalance between genders, they have to explain why there are so many more men who had gained power than women. Because feminists believe not in the equality of the genders...but in the superiority of women, delineation on the basis of gender requires less self-analysis. The leaders of the feminists movement are not concerned about other women. They are concerned about establishing their own power. In other words, the idealism of the feminist movement has long ago evaporated. REAL WOMEN do not think like today's feminists.

And most probably they will be the majority too. If what we see on this board is the "pulse" of the other liberal-minded citizens....and so-called "centrists" are.

I agree. It rings of exclusivity! The name is misleading. They should change it...

NorthStar, Thank you for posting an excerpt from the book. I do believe that white slavery is happening, and it is not something new. Not that I am dismissing it. I am only acknowledging this kind of problem had been going on for ages. As a teen, I've heard of plights by Filipino women applying for jobs overseas, thinking they'd be going as nannies or become members of performing arts going from cities to cities all over Asia. It is an organized crime syndicate that's usually behind these enterprises. They must have been improving their methods too, what with all the new technology now. It is so easy to say...do not support it. I hope it's as simple as that. But that is tantamount to just wishful thinking. There will always be someone who will be willing to pay to indulge in sick fantasies. And there will always be some enterprising individual willing to provide the supply. This is like the drug war. We've been facing and fighting it...and after all these years, it seems we're losing. Yes, I would also imagine that a lot of these clientele would not be the normal johns picking up women in our streets. The kind of sick brutalities that await a lot of the victims is just too horrific to imagine. I had seen the movie Hostel....and it makes you wonder and cringe, do those kind of places already exists? We can only always try to keep up the fight. PREVENTION may be the best thing that we can do. Governments all over the world should inform and warn their citizens about these things. Parents should warn their children. To be wary. Not to be gullible. Although in some cases, it is the parents who sell their children. It is depressing. I find the world only seems to get uglier as it grows older.

Ayayayayay! Tut! Enough already. At least he avoided saying the word that refers to a female doggie. Can you just imagine the amount of howling that would have made!

Deleted. Wrong thread. Darn!

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct. I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine." Women are cats, men are dogs we all know that. SO the phrase like "top dog" is an insult to women? How about someone who "works like a dog"? I suppose this is to be percieved as an insult to women by BLACK DOG and other overwhiney lefties? How about "DOG AND PONY SHOW"? Surely this is in some way directed at the female underclass as well? The song "who let the dogs out" certainly must have been misinterpreted by thousands of youths as a song about MEN? Black Dog and his lefty crybabies wouldn't have it! This is secretly a song about poor Belinda and other downtrodden women so oppressd by the societal reference to them -and only them- as animals. lol What about the oldie, "How much is that DOGgie in the window?" Definitely a put-down for the women prostitutes.

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct. I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine."