Spiderfish

Does Freedom of Religion trump gender equality? If Trudeau believes it does then he needs to dispense with the"because it's 2015" crap. Seems to be a clear-cut case of tripping over one's ideologies.

This is the problem I have with this as well. It appears to be a glaring example of hypocrisy and I'm not sure how he would manage to compose an explanation that would acknowledge his apparent double-standard. The "sisters upstairs" would likely be okay with it however, if they were told to be. It doesn't align with Canadian values, our PM should not be shown as supporting of such misogynistic attitudes, particularly a PM who breathlessly brags up his feminist motivations. Its kind of amazing (however not that surprising) that our PM either can't see or won't acknowledge his glaring double standard. I am frankly surprised, however, that people seem to be reluctant or refuse to hold him to his own standard which he has set.

But they aren't saying they don't want their kids to swim with whites or blacks or Jews or Christians or whatever. They're requesting that gender be separated, including their own kids. I'm not saying it's ideal, but if they wanted to segregate their own group from everyone else rather than insist on everyone else changing to suit their needs it does seem to solve the problem. I also would not have a problem if a Christian group decided they wanted their own swimming program and the host was willing to oblige, as long as the regular program wasn't affected.

Typically not to accommodate someone's religion, however. If the parent had been made aware of the change, which they weren't. This is a pretty bold assumption and implication of intolerance on your part. Just because people don't want to change established programs and segregate kids to accommodate someone's religion under the bogus pretense of supporting diversity does not make them opposed to it. What about accommodating inclusion? Diversity cannot be achieved through exclusion and segregation, frankly I'm surprised in this day and age that a university doesn't understand this.

Are we going to start segregating neighborhood swimming pools as well? If not then they probably have nothing to worry about since the kids won't swim in a co-ed pool.

This change wasn't implemented in addition to the existing program, it was brought in as a change to the existing program. The parents who had their kids in the existing program were not even notified. One of the parents said in a radio interview that they found out about this after their kid came home and asked why they weren't allowed to swim with their friends anymore. They said their kid was upset and wondered if they did something wrong. I disagree with your assessment that nobody loses. The kids who want to swim with their friends but are no longer allowed to would probably disagree with your opinion.

Fair enough. If they're in such a fragile emotional state that they are incapable of adapting to unfamiliar surroundings, they may be doing themselves a disservice by seeking out and enrolling their kids in a program in which they know there will be co-ed swimming.

I partly agree. If it doesn't impact existing programs, I don't see why we can't accommodate those who wish to be segregated, as long as it doesn't impact those who don't.

I have never through anything close to the traumatic experience that some of these refugees have been through so it's hard for me personally to relate to their experience. Having said that, if I went through the trauma of losing my home, family and friends, neighbors, etc. and watching it all destroyed through civil war, I think enrolling my kids in a summer camp co-ed swim in a welcoming, safe and greeting country would probably be fairly easy for me to handle. I may even be so grateful for my new fortune I would not even likely consider requesting that my new host country change certain policies to adapt to me.

This scenario would be reasonable and acceptable, however this is not what happened here. The university said for planning purposes, separating boys and girls of all religions made most sense, once the request was made. There is no longer a co-ed swim as a result of this accommodation.

I agree, however it is distracting to the focus of the thread, and it's meant to be. So basically it comes back to moderation; if someone is saying stupid things with the intention of insulting and distracting those participating off the focus of the topic, it needs to be dealt with by the moderators. It does nothing to contribute to the topic and is actually detrimental to the discussion. Yet this garbage is still allowed to stand. This is something I don't get. If the moderators intent is to keep the debate focused and relevant to the OP why not take out the garbage? I can't help but agree with what many see as a problem around here, moderators seem to reprimand the compelled reaction to trolling rather than dealing with the cause.

I'm sure there's maybe some truth to some of what you're saying, however it doesn't fit every situation. For example, in the swimming segregation thread, you more or less agreed with a position I took in a post and someone else responded immediately calling my position racist and accusing me of discussing a dislike of immigrants. In agreeing with my position, this would make you racist and a hater of immigrants as well in the other posters perspective. How does this insult contribute to the discussion? Who's logic is faulty? If' there's no substance to back up the claim of racism, it's simply a thread derail, plain and simple. It is of course possible that the person throwing out the racism accusation can't see any substance to the conversation past the race angle, they simply can't get past it and get stuck on it which makes their argument logically incoherent. It goes both ways.

How about if they imply one is racist without actually having the courage to come out and finish the word? Just curious so I know the acceptable level of character assault around here moving forward.

I honestly ask myself the same question of you. At first I thought maybe it was to invoke a negative reaction as you clearly did in the thread in question, however after giving this some reflection, I think you have convinced yourself your faulty perceptions are truth and are incontestable. I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for you.

Would you not interpret someone who flat-out accuses a specific poster of having a "dislike of immigrants and a fear what they will do to their country" under the guise of "the old discussion of immigration and integrating newcomers excuse" an accusation of racism? It seemed pretty clear to me... just saying.

But you see, that's what trolls do, your self-perceived "truthful messages" in at least one recent case I'm aware of was actually a blatant false-accusation which was unwarranted, unappreciated, and completely baseless; it derailed the thread and it borders on slander. You have no right to talk about moral ground, this is troll behavior, plain and simple. I can only surmise that you are so absorbed in your own over-inflated conceit you don't see the poor behavior that you're engaging in. Thanks for the suggestion, highness, but I'll take a pass. I have no interest in enforcing your delusions. It serves neither of us well. Why do you keep prefacing your reply to me with " you folks?" Who exactly are you referring to and who are you generalizing me with? I have already suggested that your faulty perception and screeching racist and supremacist where there is no racism is the big reason for the disconnect. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with that, only you can.

Yeah, that had me a bit curious as well. How many warning points did you say you have managed to rack up in your self-absorbed duck hunting foray? 14?...15? As I mentioned previously, the moderators seem to have found the source of much of the quacking.

I didn't assume, you quoted me and responded to my post by accusing me of discussing my dislike of immigrants.... It may serve you well to pay attention to your own rants and intolerance for diversity of opinion. No, but apparently you have reached a conclusion based on your Jedi-like perception. I'm sure you would disagree, you apparently know about everyone's motivations based on...? I know your disdain for "parsed posts", maybe this will be the end of your inane games and baseless accusations.

Maybe the malfunction you seem to be experiencing is that you perceive racism in comments and positions where it doesn't exist. Hard to comprehend, but it is conceivable that it is "your" perception that is faulty. I have not once referenced Canada as "my" country, although I am proud to say that it is, and have not once expressed a "blatant dislike for immigrants or a fear of what they may do to my country" . Perhaps this is another example of you reading between the lines and dazzling us all with your superior perception and insight, perhaps something else. One thing I do find it is intellectually obtuse and somewhat offensive. The fact that you believe that you can perceive someone else's intentions and views better than them verges on delusional, and completely undermines any credibility to your position in the discussion.

I'm not exactly sure who this diatribe was directed at, but I too am constantly amused by those who feel they are above everything in a civil discussion about immigration and integrating newcomers into a society, and "look down their noses" at those who don't hold a certain point of view; decrying them of being closet racists or supremacists without actually having the first clue about who they actually are or what they actually believe. It's laughable if nothing else, however contributes nothing to a discussion.

I didn't say segregating sexes is "lunacy", for accommodation of Muslim or Christian reasons. My personal view on this is I don't really care what these groups do behind the walls of their own institutions, I'm not Muslim or Christian and it doesn't really affect me....that is until one of these groups decides that public programs need to be altered and genders segregated to accommodate their religion or culture, of which I am not a follower. Then it becomes everyone's business. That's what I see is the source of the push-back here. And for the record, if I read the story correctly, I don't believe the parents of the refugee kids were even approached prior to the U of R making this decision. It sounds like it was a decision made solely by the university with the belief that this would somehow encourage diversity. I'm not sure the parents of the newcomers even wanted this move to be made and if so do not hold them accountable one bit for this terrible decision, the university made a poor choice.

By altering an established co-ed swimming program without informing or consulting with parents who have enrolled their kids prior to doing so. Maybe they need to start a "Syrian swimming program" for those who are not comfortable, it may solve the problem for everyone. No, it's more like going to family night at the bowling alley and being approached by the proprietor of the establishment half way through your game who asks the women and girls in your party to please go over to the far lanes because they are trying to accommodate the religion of several refugees who have shown up who would like to try out the game. Who stated or implied it was?

It's different because a parents make a conscious decision to enroll their kid into a Christian School. if you aren't comfortable with the terms of the enrollment you can decide not to enroll them. this is understood prior to this decision being made. In this case it was a public coed program that was altered to accommodate religious diversity for the new refugees, without prior input or discussion with parents. It was exclusion for the sake of some bogus perceived diversity. Does religion or religious accommodation for a few at the expense of everyone else have any place in a public, non-secular institution or program?

This has nothing to do with the kids making a decision. Throw a bunch of kids into a swimming pool in the summer and they will play with each other and have fun. This has to do with accommodating the parents religious wishes, it's the enforcement of perceived diversity through exclusion by the university. Maybe we should have all the kids recite the lord's prayer at the beginning of each day as well before going off to play.

Despite the hysteria that water may be unsafe for months, over 900 water samples have been taken and all have been determined to be safe per Canadian drinking water guidelines. There were 5 samples taken prior to July 24th from the point of entry that did not pass the standard, however subsequent tests at the spill location have come up clean. http://www.paherald.sk.ca/News/Local/2016-08-03/article-4605958/River-water-tests-clear-since-July-24/1 Yet all we seem to hear from the media is how winter is coming and there will be no way to pipe water from the South Saskatchewan.