Rue

I probably don't agree with Benz on the current Quebec government Premier who I support, but I totally agree with his comments on this thread. This is an issue of identification at times and I might add I would at in certain situations occupational health and safety in the work place or safety issues concerning citizens operating machinery privately. Security as an issue is a sub-topic under identity. Not all identity issues are about security. Not all concerns about a full face covering are about questioning Islam. For example in Brampton, Ontario a Siekh asked for an exemption on wearing a helmet due to his turban while riding a motorcycle, and was told no you must wear the helmet. To me if a full face covering males someone more likely to get injured or cause an injury off it goes. That has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with common sense which is I believe the point Benz has been making all along. We don't care for the symbolism the full covering means but that is an individual decision. It crosses over into a state concern if there is a concern as to safety, identity, security, and where a decision maker or public servant's appearance might trigger a real or perceived apprehension of bias. I treat a full face covering with a Muslim woman no different then I would a non Muslim man stepping into a bank or driving a bus or running a day care centre fully masked. I don't think playing the religion card to justify special treatment in specific situations is called for. That's my opinion and I apply that belief to all people equally. This discussion is absurd. If the person was wearing a KKK hood or a Satanic hood or some a baclava what would such tolerant people like Eye say. They'd be the first peeing themselves with indignation and fear if it was not to their liking. I think in the case of countries like France and Denmark although I do not presume to speak for them, they got fed up with semantic debates as to what is and is not an individual freedom in a democracy and have drawn the line passing a limit to apply to all equally not just Muslims. My only bone to pick in Quebec with the National Assembly is it left a cross on the wall in the Assembly. In so doing it contradicts itself everytime it talks about this issue. Its a bad contradictory message. Either religous symbols are allowed or not allowed but leaving one in the assembly sends mixed signals. I personally have no problem with that cross but because I do I can't be contradictory and hold one standard for Christians and one for Muslims. I don't feel that is right. That said I support Christian displays at Christmas so telling a Muslim not to wear whatever they want in public would be contradictory and unfair which is why I argue for specific safety, identity issues fine for just general use, its not for me to go around telling people how to dress. Where it gets tricking is with the legal issue of a person in a position of public trust who might trigger an apprehension of bias, or where the attire triggers immediate negative emotional reaction. Its a difficult concept to enforce. Some women find full face coverings very insulting to their identity. Maybe its as strong as I would feel or someone else about KKK hoods or Nazi uniforms. How do we have a consistent legal standard for such things? How do we define what goes over the line to incite hate as opposed to being just an individual expression of belief. Many argue the full face covering is an individual belief that entails no concepts of hatred. Others argue it symbolizes violent repression of the woman's identity. These are issues in a healthy democracy we are going to need to debate.There is no black and white to these issues. I also think the only difference between Quebec and other provinces on this issue is that traditionally because of Quebec's legal system, it has been always about 5 years ahead in social concepts in law such as family law or freedom of speech because of the differences in Loi Civile in Quebec or its constant experience of testing its identity's limits within a greater Anglo context which causes it to be activist in approach as opposed to reconciliatory-reactive as is the case in the rest of Canada. The pre-existing minority status of Quebec triggers it to question minority issues all the time. I also find Ontario a very strange province since I moved here in 1978 or so. Ontarians always have maintained this polite veneer while underneath where the true sentiment is, its not smiley faced tolerant. The politics of Liberals in Ontario is very elitist, selective, bigoted, and appeals to tribalism and playing to people's perceived common interests based on ethnic stereotypes. Kathleen Wynne is the protype of a bigot posing as a Liberal. She ha s open contempt and disdain for the very people she claims she supports. The ads of her embracing Muslim voters is a joke. When the cameras are off she curses them all out as homophobic sob's. Some of us aren't buying her crap or Trudeau's. I will say it again, the Premier in Quebec right now and Stephen Harper are genuinely far more moderate towards ethnics and seeking compromise then I believe the PQ's current leader would be or Trudeau is. Maybe Quebecers don't like Couillard, I do not know I just think in an impossible job he has genuinely tried to be moderate centre for Quebec. We have few centrist leaders these days. I would like to think the current PC candidate in Ontario is one. The one I liked in the Liberal party for being centralist is Grant Garneau who was my choice not Trudeau. I would also like to think the fed Tories picked their leader based on his ability to balance the right and left of his parties and for that reason I hope it works. I think on most of these issues centralist moderation is the way to go avoiding left and right artificial stereotypes of positions.

I think Bill 62 in Quebec was stupid but is a direct result of trying to a politically very popular sentiment that Quebecers don't want the full face covering. The Justice Minister of Quebec has now retracted previous statements and says Muslims can keep their faces covered in public and on the bus but if they are asked to show their face to verify a bus pass they will have to which I argued makes sense. I also argued trying to tell people what to wear in public through the government is a very slippery slop. The Part Quebecois wants a law that will have police enforce what can be worn in public. That is just not realistic. I have argued on specific situations we need to see the face to ascertain identity, in others you do not. No you want to go up to a bank teller wearing a full face covering, don't expect that to be o.k. From a practical perspective, face coverings in certain situations in our society is a security issue. False identity theft and fraud is a fact. I argue we have to balance individual freedom and the right to dress how we want (a fundamental democratic right) with security issues that might be caused in specific situations by a face covering AND issues dealing with the timing and place for wearing coverings other than security. Full face coverings are offensive to modern, progressive women and men who believe it is a symbol of repressive sexual fascism. To see people like Eye posing as righteous trending liberals whole supporting sexual fascist symbols is par for the course. Liberals like him can't imagine their shit stinks and the ideologies they embrace are not only fascist but ridicule the very values Eye thinks he is hip to. Make no mistake,-the signal our government is sending is two faced. It slams Christian fundamentalism and supports Muslim Fundamentalism at the same time. The Prime Minister of this country attacked the Conservative opposition leader for being Catholic and suggesting his Catholic fundamentalist beliefs will render him bias as a Prime Minister and this is coming from someone who sat in mosques and welcomes with open arms the support of Muslim fundamentalists who openly preach against Jews and Christians. Trudeau will stand up in Parliament and wax poetic about Islamophobia but when an Imam who teaches at Ryerson gives a speech openly calling for the killing of Jews, Trudeau says NOTHING. My point is simple. Don't tell Christians they can't celebrate their holidays or beliefs publically and then in the next breath defend the rights of Muslims to do the same. Don't like Trudeau did single out a Catholic politician and smeer him for being anti-abortion and then in the next breath represent Muslim fundamentalists with the identical anti-abortion beliefs. I detest religions and philosophies used to tell women their freedom comes from covering themselves up. I think its a mentally unhealthy, repressive, sexually fascist, ignorant, prehistoric approach to healthy gender awareness and violates and contradicts everything democracies stand for and what healthy minds need and want it challenged, condemned, fought against, debated, but ultimately as a conservative I believe that should be done by people in the open in respectful debate not imposed by government agencies. Don't smeer Conservatives of being Christian fundamentalists while claiming to be a righteous hip Liberal while embracing Muslim fundamentalism. I think people like Eye posing as hip leftists and then embracing sexual fascism are full of it-they are oblivious to the contradictions in their message. I say the contradictions have to be balanced and therefore myself, I have no problem with Christians embracing religious symbols in public and for that very reason don't have a problem with Muslims wearing full coverings. However there is a time and place and I don't give a damn what belief you have, if you cover your face while being a witness in court, or when asked to swear an oath, or confirm your identity, lift that hood. As well, for me personally, I find hoods inappropriate if they cut off side vision and the individual is operating machinery or driving a school bus, etc. I do not think religious symbols trump safety requirements Muslim women who want to embrace face coverings choose to limit their access to the public. They can't have it both ways and expect to exclude themselves when its convenient to them but expect everyone else to accommodate them. You want to serve me as a government official or at a public counter take it off. If you are in private business, keep it on and I don't do business with you. Its that simple. You want to cover yourself up that is your choice but do NOT shove or impose your beliefs on me. You want me to respect your right to exclude yourself, respect my right to exclude you for excluding yourself. Its a two way street. So I agree with Besty's blunt comments that started this thread. I also defer to her point which is absolutely true that the call to ban burkas is not only the domain of right wingers and I would add to what Michael H said that banning or non banning of religious symbols is not something particular to any political ideology. It transcends left and right stereotypes. Conservatives value individual freedoms being left alone by the state and prefer to manage things without government imposition-Liberals prefer the state as the agent of imposing things on individuals. Liberals are now imposing a fractured, contradictory mess of a message saying come to Canada and bring your anti democratic views with you because we tolerate intolerance. Me I find all religious symbols from people who are representing the government a potential problem. I have no problem with a head covering but NO you want to serve the public you can't cover your entire face. That's my opinion. Some people want to go further and demand any appearance of religion in the civil service to avoid getting into absurd arguments about when someone's religious symbols go too far. I go back to the swearing in ceremony for citizens. If someone chose to cover their head in a baklava saying it is part of their religious beliefs at a swearing in ceremony it would never be allowed. Someone dressed in Satanic attire for a Canadian citizenship swearing in ceremony including full hood cover probably would be told to leave but not fully covered Muslim woman. That's an inconsistent message. Liberals select the trend or flavour of the day. This same Liberal party that called Jews rats and vermin and sent them back to their death in Hitler's Germany now pose as lovers of refugees and immigrants-so much so they have signalled the world anyone can crash our borders now and come in illegally and there are no legal consequences. The reason? Its real clear. Its selective discrimination based on the perception that anyone breaking into Canada is worthy of anything Canadians have. Its automatic entitlement now symbolized by alleged refugees taking charter buses to the Canadian borders, then driven by taxis with their suit cases to illegal border crossings where they come across and the RCMP and border guards are reduced to carrying their bags. Excuse me but things are out of control. There is a lack of common sense, morality, ethics and need to follow laws. This current government sabotaged the Immigration laws deliberately. It believes the minority vote will re-elect it and identify with the illegals coming in. Trudeau is a racist and believes an African Canadian, Siekh Canadian, Muslim Canadian, identify with the needs of their own people first, and will vote based on their voting for what best suits their own ethnicity and not the entire country. Its a racist assumption minorities are myopic and only vote for things of direct benefit to their ethnic group. Trudeau is creating open tribes of interests which he appeals to tribe members to join and put before a collective Canadian identity. He creates divisions to pander to them to get elected.

Personally I think your opinion is the product of a spoiled rich boy who presumes like his trust fund, money just sits around waiting to be spent. I'll take the opinion of Mike McNeil's before yours: http://www.nugget.ca/2017/07/11/the-government-is-rewarding-terrorists-and-punishing-vets

Lol you made my day. I try my hardest.

The above fractured syntax is incoherent, irrational and an illustration of extreme simplism. You engage in a clumsy disjointed attempt to state that whether a Muslim country is assisted by or conflicted with the US its shortcomings are all caused by the US. Your comment is moronic. The US did not draft the Koran nor did it implement Sharia law in Muslim nations nor did it even exist for the vast majority of the time Muslim countries have existed and been at war internally or externally. In your world everything can be blamed on the US government. It also necessarily means since you are in conflict with the US government, your behaviour is solely the result of the US and not your own free will. Might I suggest your issues might be caused by a congenital conditions and not by the US government.

First of all thanks for the respectful reply. Secondly and I mean this with no malice, provide me the name of a Muslim regime that you would refer to as being democratic, without corruption, internal strife/civil war and is well managed. I do mean that without malice. I can't find any. My point being with due respect Sharia law which is not distinct from the state apperati does not promote stability and democracy although fair is fair, if you think there is a government I overlooked please let me know and no I should not blame Muslims for having Muslim states anymore than people should condemn Jews for having a Jewish state or England being an Anglican state, or India being a Hindu state or Thailand or the conquered Tibet being Bhuddist ones, etc. Next in regards to 1; if a government elected democratically becomes undemocratic, it doesn't mean that government is beyond reproach-Hitler was democratically elected. All dictators claim to be democratically elected. That strange fat boy in Pyong Pen, North Korea will tell you he was democratically elected. With due respect I am not saying the Shah of Iran was democratic no, but please don't tell me Iran runs legitimate elections and is democratic although I do not doubt its supporters feel it is. In regards to 2, clearly I disagree with your use of the term "seizing Arab land". Jews of Palestine were and are as Arab as any Muslim or Christian from those lands. Those Muslims who came to Palestine because of British immigration policy that flooded Palestine with Muslims to prevent a Jewish state contrary to their mandate under the League of Nations were just as much foreigners to Palestine as any Jew from the Middle East or Europe or anywhere else who came to Palestine. The concepts that Arabs "owned" the land is not legally or historically accurate. I would say to you-you are right there is no point going off on a tangent about Israel its not helpful but I do agree in a comprehensive peace deal its not realistic Israel would keep West Bank lands other than safe borders. In regards to 3, you would have to clarify. I am aware the Palestinian Authority's BDS movement trying to boycott anything Israeli but I am not aware of any boycotts of Palestinian goods by anyone. If you are referring to security screening of goods going into Gaza yes its there and it is designed to prevent bringing in weapons, and it delays goods coming in but if goods are going in. In regards to 4, I note you did not put Canada, Japan, Russia, China, France, and all the other nations getting oil from the Middle East. Why? Next while no doubt the oil network does exploit oil, come on OPEC is padding the pockets of corrupt Arab politicians and monarchs and blaming oil companies for that is inaccurate. Yes they do shady crap you bet and yes they prop corrupt governments with oil indirecly through governments, but that is hardly a British-American phenomena although yes I concede the historic rule in Iran and Iraq by the British and other monarchies of the Arab world was always about oil. In fairness to the US it has been a strong ally of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait true, but how is that different than China in Sudan,. Mozambique, Angola, Iran and Iraq. China takes most of Iran's oil and 90% of Iraq's and Iraq's remanining 10% goes to Russia. In regards to 5, many CIA puppets have been propped in the Middle East, i.e., Nasser, Ghaddafi, Hussein, not to mention Papa and Jr. Assad were Western props. Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, on and on I got you. However let's not select out the puppets put in by Nazi Germany, the Soviets, the current Russians and China and blame it entirely on such nations. What I argue is some of the corruption and manipulation was or is from the West but not all of it. I get your points, up to a point. Where the line ends between bad Western influences and internal Muslim societies failing I do not have a clear answer for. Ia m just saying its both.

I agree that all religions are equally as suspect. Where I disagree is you are selective in which religions you hate just as you are selective as to what secondary physical characteristics people have that you hate. In short you pay lip service to sentiments you don't apply equally to all religions.

May I take up your first words and use them as a basis to make some rhetorical questions to try make a point. Thank you because I am removing them out of the context you used them for which I appreciate. Can anyone name a Muslim country that has treated another Muslim country or non Muslim country fairly? Can anyone think of a Muslim country accepted or acknowledged its collective responsibility for a war or conflict, ever? The selective take on history that Muslim countries are victims is with due respect just that selective and it leads I would argue to a false narrative and a rewriting of history to falsely portray Muslim states as victims of the West. Muslim states vicitimize and kill. If one looks at the history of Muslim nations from the organized implementation of Islam through Sharia law states to the nations of today, this depiction of Muslim states being victims is false. They have victimized more than they have been victimized and they have victimized Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Bahaiis, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, Siekhs, Druze, Kurds, Azidi, communists, trade unionists, gays, women, on and on. Islam is not and has never been a peaceful religion in the manner in which it has been practiced by states and imposed by war on others whether it be fellow Muslims or non Muslims. Muslim countries not treated fairly? What country has been treated fairly on this planet and who decides that? With due respect when referring to the history of Islam, there is very little peace. To pretend it was a peaceful society only to be victimized by the West into becoming bad is a crock of crap. Its the same false script that falsely states Muslim extremists, Muslim terrorists are only violent because the West victimized them. Oh bull sheeyat. Muslims have been and continue to be their own worst enemy clinging to a non flexible approach to their ideology and condemnation of progressive Islamic movements trying to teach and guide them to move past fundamentalist rigid thought processes to critical analysis and free thought. My concern is for progressive Muslims and all kinds of Muslims and non Muslims being victimized by Islamic extremists. My concern is that states in Niger, Chad, Malawi, Sudan, or in pockets of Nigeria, or in Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, are corrupted and violent-blaming the West for Muslim uprisings in China and Russia is nonsensical. Suggesting Boca Ratan are reacting to Western unfairness in Nigeria is crap. When the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt tried to wipe out Coptic Christians, when Sudan does the same through its Muslim Brotherhood to its Christians, when Assad engages in what he does, when Erdogan of Turkey openly calls for war against Kurds and encourages their genocide and denies the Armenian genocide, that's not because the West was unfair. The Arab league nations that chose to ally with the Nazis, then Soviets and try wipe out Jews for having a tiny country were not victims-in fact they victimized Palestinians and turned Palestinians into pawns for their failed victimization of Jews in Israel. the 900,000 Jews expelled from the Arab world, the hundreds of thousands of Jews persecuted in Arab countries along with Zoroastreans, Bahaiis, Christians, were not victimized because of the West victimizing Muslim nations. My comments are directed at Muslim governments and extremist Muslim terrorists and theologians, not ALL Muslims. I have been careful to state the Muslim governments I criticize hate everyone especially fellow Muslims in their own nations.

Horse crap.Where do you get off making you righteous pronouncements trying to name call people. How can a religion NOT contain ideology. All religions contain ideology, i.e., visionary theorizing, concepts regarding human life or culture and most importantly integrated assertions theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program all characteristics of both theology and ideology and in particular Islam and Sharia law which fuse theology, politics, and law and use the state to impose Islamic r beliefs. Ideology refers to a broad set of beliefs that any one person or group holds and theology or religion refers to an ideology a group of like minded persons believe about the origins of their life, or what God is. To suggest religions don't set out ideological concepts as to political, economic and social beliefs is past stupid, its nonsensical. You just spew out the isms and ists the moment you disagree with something. If anything religion is a faith based ideology that might focus on a subject matter as to God or lack of God but its still an ideology. Run along and use a dictionary. Racist. Yah. Racism refers to the exercise of discriminating against someone because of engaging in negative generalizations based on racial, i.e., secondary physical characteristics, skin colour, eye structure, nose shape, hair texture NOT beliefs as to God, social, economical or political beliefs. Its lazy, HALF ASSED, name calling to misapply the term racism let alone make an illogical statement that religion is not an ideology. Next you will say theology can't be a philosophy as well.

I agree with all your statements. I would say some Islamophobia is illogical or irrational but not all of it. I agree with you its a great way to shut down criticism and free speech regarding extremist Islamic practices or the correlation between them and terrorism or say female genital mutilation. Its tough though when we discuss any culture, religion, political belief, that we don't break down to people accusing others of isms and ists. One of the problems I have always tried to challenge is how people make unfounded generalizations based on their own subjective opinions and try pass them off on this forum as objective facts and for me I thin some of the worst offenders claiming Islamophobia on this forum engage in anti semitic, anti Christian, anti white, and other generalizations and engage in the very same stereotypes of non Muslims they claim are done to Muslims. Its par for the course. Islamophobia can be real or imagined. Me personally I think it can explain Bill 62 in Quebec. I do. I think it is a subjective political expression of disdain and/or fear for Muslim head covers and too many people are too afraid to admit that. I don't like the head covers and I detest many Muslim practices as to the physical body and gender identical how I reject the same kind of beliefs in any religion. I am not afraid to say so. Is it a fear? More like a disgust or disdain based on a strong opinion. I don't fear Islam. I dislike certain Muslims using it for their own subjective views that c onflict with mine. I agree with you that calling a dislike of Islamophobia may not be that. If anything an unfair generalization of all Muslims might be a discriminatory belief not a fear. Its not necessarily both but of course it could be at times. I personally believe the best way to deal with Islamic beliefs we don't like is to debate them openly, without generalizing or assigning all Muslims negative stereotypes. Hell I openly question my own religion with a lot of criticism. Its not based on fear.

Trump has very little to do with NAFTA. It comes down to are mega-national companies and businesses through governors, senators and congressmen/women on lobbying for their interests not what Trump wants. Trump is basically a figure head who farts loudly at specific times thinking farting is an effective way into pressuring people into doing his bidding. All its done is have people clear the room and leave him isolated. He's farted so many times now no one is in the same room as him. Politics is about networking,. Trump is about shock farting-he farts to get attention. In so doing he alienates and with no network, with no allies, he can not get a thing done. Bush gave a speech this week. Make no mistake. It was written by the big wigs in the Republican party warning Trump to shut the phack up. The Republicans realize they are all going to lose their seats and that Trump is in self destruct alienating his best allies. 76% of Canada's economy is dependent on the US. If Trump blows up NAFTA all that happens is Canada will be forced to look elsewhere for trade and it should anyways. Its unacceptable 76% of our economy is US captive. It makes us a colony. We need o increase trade with the EU, Britain leaving the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South America. We can and should set up free trade deals with other countries just as we did with Chile. Canada should have in my opinion set up a joint aero industry program with SAAB in Sweden and explore military, air and shipping agreements with France, Britain, Holland, Sweden. Why we do not have a free trade deal with Argentina and Brazil is anyone's guess. We should have free trade deals with South Korea, Israel, India and Japan. We are lazy. We are lazy because US Senators, congressmen and women and Governors not Trump set up mutually beneficial relationships with us. If Trump wants to sabotage that so be it. I personally think he's just a pathetic fool who farts and the senators, governors, congress reps and mega nationals in the US will not allow NAFTA to be blown up. This notion of isolationism Trump has may be worked in the 1920's but not today where the internet has made borders an anachronism to business and a hinderance. Trump is a sad self destructing toad on his way out. He's been given one final Republican warning via the Bush speech. Nefore NAFTA blows up or Korea or Iran blows up the Republicans will oust him. My prediction is in the next two years the Donald has a heart attack or a stroke and dies of natural causes. Or he's removed by a sex scandal similar to Harvey Weinstein. These days taking down a loud farting baboon is not hard. No one thought Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein were capable of being brought down. Donald is easier to take down. He has no inner network protecting him and dependent on him. Trump's power comes from being able to use his powers to influence decisions ifavour of businesses. He's not doing that. He in fact has a lot of contempt for big businesses because he himself is no businessman. He compensates trying to act like he was and still is one. He was and remains a salesman. Someone who stands up in Peurto Rico and describes it as an island surrounded by big water is in no position to do anything. He's a pathetic idiot whose retardation can no longer be covered up..

Your comment above makes no legal sense, is incoherent, and shows a total ignorance as to the grounds for a legal reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and what the doctrine of clean hands is. Then again its par for the course-you spewing incoherent nonsense which tries to pass of your disjointed political biases as legal doctrine.

Actually the refusal to ask the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on whether Kadr was entitled to ANY financial compensation and if so whether it should have only been a nominal amount because of the Doctrine of Clean Hands was never dealt with so we will never know whether in fact this government's decision to pay $5 million saved the government any money. Omni with due respect is a Trudeau cult member. He is not able to discuss the Kadr issue without blindly spinning in favour of how Trudeau handled it. In fact Trudeau engaged in a secret out of court settlement to avoid political fallout from Jean Chretien's previous actions. It was a crass political decision to cover up. What its also done is expose this country to a precedent we will pay terrorists millions when we violate their human rights ignoring the doctrine of clean hands. In fact the government did not save us money, To say that suggests Omni is a psychic and knows the doctrine of clean hands would not have been applied or the amount awarded was far too large. He has no clue at all. He parrots what he does because he can't fathom Trudeau is a spineless leader who avoids any conrraversy. Trudeau did not lead on this issue he hid from it because he's afraid if he made any decision other then what he did he would alienate Muslim voters,. Trudeau among many things such as spineless, gutless, dishonest, coward, is a racist and bigot. He assumes all Muslims would not vote for him if he came down on Kadr and in so doing he insults those Muslims who think Kadr had dirty hands and not withstanding his charter rights being violated which they were, any compensation should be cancelled out because of the doctrine of dirty hands. Then again Omni if you go back on this thread avoided the clean hands doctrine for pages upon pages of responses pretending the law said it did not apply then finally had to admit there is no case precedent that ever said the clean hands doctrine would not have applied. Trudeau had an obligation on behalf of all Canadians to ask the court no withstanding the charter violations did the doctrine of clean hands apply to annul any compensation amount. Trudeau never did so we do not know. Not only do we not know but legally the refusal to ask for direction means all terrorists from Canada can now commit terror overseas or in Canada and if we violate their charter rights they can sue us for money. This is for me the most cowardly and repulsive thing TRudeau has done in office other than exploiting Syrian refugees for pgoto ops and sticking his face and presence in a native ceremony for the late Gord Downie of Tragically Hip where he should not have been present trying to act like he was God Downie's buddy. Even in that private moment the narcissist Trudeau had to ttry bring attention to himself. I consider Trudeau a spineless, eunuch who does not lead. He's a gutless, emotionally damaged boy who craves approval to the point where he has destroyed this country. For Omni to come on this thread and keep saying Trudeau saved the country money is a total pile of crap. This is a man who spear heads a government than has placed this country in bankruptcy without out of control spending and attacks small business people as tax criminals while its Finance Minister and Prime Minister live off of trust funds and have never had to work. Morneau didn't even have the decency to put his assets in blind trust using a legal loophole while at the same time blasting small business people for using legal loopholes? Morneau is a disgusting lying pig. He kept his hands on shares of Morneau Shepell which escalated in price when the federal government gave them added business. This is the same Trudeau who claims transparency and accountability and chastised the Tories for not being upfront and ethical and engaging in conflicts of interest while his Finance Minister performed as a lying whore and Trudeau Mr. Photo Op man of the people? Well? He flies in private jets to have a private vacation with the Aga Kahn whose charity his government received millions from the federal government. Canadians should have expected Trudeau selling this government out for a terrorist. Veterans come back from war and can't get a decent benefit from Afghanistan and he gives this terrorist 5 million. It speaks volumes.

Well said. I think some fears may be rational and others irrational and ultimately who decides the difference remains the question that gets debated. Personally I think the current government's condoning of immigration chaos at the borders is a deliberate refusal to take leadership fearing alienation of ethnic voters Its spineless stewardship. True is a Captain of a sail boat who lets the wind of needing to be liked lead him blindly. With that analogy in mind I think Trudeau should get over his addiction to blow jobs and grow a back bone. In regards to Quebec, I think Bill 62 is another version of a law trying to appease or pander to a popular public sentiment but does not necessarily make a good law. The inherent nature of the law makes it subjective, impractical to enforce and defies a method of consistent application because of its wording,how it was written. Its a dog's breakfast. I fail to see how a woman in full cover is needed to be confronted by a bus driver if she pays her full fare. Its ridiculous. I could see the police asking for facial identification if they are driving or when serving as a witness at trial or swearing an oath (where the identity of the person is crucial) but those are specific instances. Laws that are not clearly enunciated for specific reasons tend to be thrown out by courts as poorly written and the benefit of the doubt given to the individuals seeking to ignore NOT enforce those laws. We also have a Charter of Rights giving broad application to certain rights which I believe come into conflict with Bill 62. So it then comes back to your comments. Me personally I would like a society without face coverings but on the other hand I am not interested or agree with using bus drivers as enforcement agents to order people to remove head coverings. If a bus driver felt there was a security or criminal concern they should be calling police not being put in the position of having to enforce the law themselves and I think the bus unions may order their drivers not to enforce the law and call the police to prevent liability exposure. Calling on people to impose demands on others opens a slippery slope. Today its head coverings, tomorrow what....certain tatoos...beards.....where does it end on who decides what is an acceptable look in public? I think fundamental principles of freedom of expression in democracy should not be sacrificed in the name of protecting democracy. That said, I fail to see how a woman in full covering in a bus is a threat to democracy or Canadian culture. Surely we are not that weak we need bus drivers telling people to show their face. Its one thing for police in very specific situations to ask that, but in general, non criminal every day situations, this law has gone too far. It is harassment of innocent people and its not the way to encourage people to adapt in a healthy manner. I personally believe Bill 62 is generated in part by Islamophobia, a fear that our society is turning too Muslim and that Islam is contagious and going to spread to women like some sexually transmitted disease. Look if someone wants to dress as a Nazi or in a KKK uniform or drape themselves in an ISIL flag, sure, draw a line and ask such people to stop disturbing the public but wearing clothes to deliberately incite or express hatred is one thing-wearing a full covering come on its not intended to hate people and entice violence. It may be repugnant and counter to our modern views, so debate it, challenge it, but can we not do that with respect and civility? Do we really want to arrest and make martyrs out of women dressed in full coverings? All this will do is the exact opposite of what it intends-it will make scapegoats and victims out of such people and bring sympathy to their values-it will in fact hinder healthy free speech and discussion. As a Jew I hated how Nazis marched down Skokie, Illinois deliberately provoking a suburb full of holocaust survivors but the US system balanced the right of free speech with protection of these vulnerable citizens. In that case the police were used to protect the innocent people of the suburbs and keep the Nazis contained but freedom of speech was not prevented. In a democracy sometimes we have to allow unpopular ideas to be expressed. Its how we challenge and grow past them-by keeping them in the open and challenging them. Surely using a law to tell people how they must dress which is exactly what Sharia law is used for is not what we want our laws to do as well.

Surgical masks don't cover the entire face just nose and mouth. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I think this is talking about a full covering or one where only eyes show. That said how about Halloween masks? From a practical perspective how many bus drivers will refuse to drive their bus and call the police to remove Muslim women from buses? Would the police even answer the calls? It brings up some ugly possibilities for sure and subjective ones. The reality is the law will be challenged and thrown out as violating the charter and specifically religious freedoms and freedom of speech/expression. Its an example of catering to what is perceived as popular sentiment in Quebec. The PQ say it does not go far enough. The NDP that traditionally has depended on PQ voters voting for them federally which led to the down-fall of the Bloc Quebecois will lose that vote now they have a visible minority leader opposed to this kind of legislated prohibition against certain religious attire. I have argued I feel someone getting their driver's license or stopped by the police while driving or swearing an oath in court, or testifying in court or making a pledge of allegiance for citizenship should be required to show their face but I don't agree with this law. Its application is broad, not specific, and it is not for security reasons. Its an attempt to cater to a specific political popular belief in Quebec at this time. I disagree with the PQ demanding signs in French bigger than English not insisting on signs being French as well as any other language. I do not see what this has to do with protecting Quebec culture. This is the irony. People argue of Muslims become the majority they will pass laws imposing their beliefs on others. Maybe those of us who fear that should understand we do it too maybe intentionally, may be unintentionally. Where that middle ground of tolerance is I don't claim to know at this point.

Specific to Parizeau you made some interesting comments. Appreciated. Yes I forgot about that part of the Italian history in Quebec. Good point. Don't want to derail the topic. Appreciated your response.

Interesting how "liberal" Canadians deal with an issue Israel has had to deal with for at least 68 years if not longer before it came about. I lost track how many arm chair liberals in Canada have accused Israelis of being racist over security issues just like this one. What Israel does is physically body check anyone suspicious getting on and off a bus. Its life. It means if you are an Orthodox Jew, Muslim whatever, you will get physically searched. In countries where terrorism is a moment by moment reality, security trumps such issues as your right to cover your face or carry a bag in public without it being searched all the time. Now in Canada we may one day get to that point. However I would say right now, as we speak I think the issue in Quebec about head coverings is not about security but a feeling by Quebecois that their culture is endangered by visible religious symbols. Technically a beard is a face covering. Should we order those shaved too? This is an issue that aint going away in Quebec. Les Quebecois, predominantly the French Quebecers calling themselves Purelaines or old stock, i.e., white French speaking Quebecers, as well to be fair as certain English Quebecers don't like the face coverings and are using the law to express their belief. Its not an easily resolved issue. Its going to get worse before it gets better.

Sorry I edited that.

Good question. My people don't vote. They eat bones, pee on poles, and wag their tails.

Benz I probably agree yes with what Garber and you say but I am reluctant to say who should speak French or English. I was brought up and always will believe they are equal languages of Canada and I should know both, I envy anyone who is good with languages. I pretty much agree with all of what you say really except for Parizeau. When asked to clarify his ethnique comment he said was referring to Greeks, Italians and Jews. All 3 of us knew that and we knew damn well he always hated our communities and hate is not a strong word. He did. He openly chastised us for being who we were. In fact when he made his clarification as to which ethnic groups he meant, he skipped the Chinese who believe me he insulted and applauded when they pulled down the signs in Chinatown. He also made a point of singling out 12 ridings in Cote St. Luc for voting no, he singled them out because that's where the Jews were. So let's not down play his bigotry and its against Italians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, English speaking minorities of all kinds too, yes. I heard and read his speeches no different than you. He was a demagogue playing divisive politics. Hated him. Tell you what though you will not see me label Quebecois for him. That is b.s., just a wing of the party. I am in my heart sympathetic to Quebec culture. I was born in it and like it not withstanding my Moredcai Richler sense of humour. I was brought up to be bilingual bicultural. Truthfully the no. of anti semitic incidents I experienced were more likely from Anglophones than Francophones, but either way it was no big deal. All minorities went through that and still do. Well I say no big deal, maybe it was some days but I mean I don't feel victimized by it and I considered the anti-Semitic crap I did put up with no different than the people calling French Quebecers pepsis and frogs. I grew up in an Irish neighbourhood. Everybody taunted everybody as a test, then you fought, got up and were friends and that included the French Quebecers we played hockey against. We all were united by hockey that is the honest truth. I joke its Les Canadiens who were the Chosen Ones not us Hebrews. I have always argued the Habs were and are God's team. Now I have to put up with Leafs fans. They finally have a promising team and may be led out of the wilderness but the Leaf's are Satan's team. Well no I guess the Flames are. Anyways let's see what happens in Quebec with the NDP. If they give him a hard time its going to be the way they would give a hard time to anyone visible with religious symbols. People have to understand Quebecois don't like ANY religious symbols. I doubt today you would find Quebecois voting for Priests if they ran for office. The province went through a lot of anghst distancing itself from the Catholic Church in politics. People should understand its a distancing from ALL religions not just Catholicism but I leave or defer that to you. Other than a minority of ultra orthodox Jews still in Outremont the majority of Jews still in Montreal are not orthodox so would not appear visible. I am not sure how I would feel as a Muslim or Jew who is visibly wearing noticeable garments, clothes. I think I would be nervous. Then again I would love to ask whether nuns feel they get dirty looks or stared at as well in Quebec these days. As for the discrimination, I have to agree with you some of it just is like it is everywhere and has nothing to do with Quebec culture and everything to do with human nature. That is a very valid point and one I am not sure the NDP leader may grasp, maybe he will. I mean maybe he does have the last laugh in Quebec-I just find having lived there, Quebecers want very blunt, straight shooting politicians. They hate bafflegab. Parizeau never resonated with his grassroots Pequistes. His feigned academic Parisenne drawl was ridiculed by Quebecois and France French people equally. Mulroney knew how to play Quebec because he got down and dirty with the people in Quebec. He was far more bicultural than Trudeau as much as I respected Trudeau's Jesuit logic and ability to walk through ethnic divisions. Trudeau was not for the average guy in Quebec just us minorities and I think a privileged class in Quebec. I don't think he could connect with blue collar Quebec. Few have been able to. I think although I again defer to you on that, I think Layton may have in his own way. The guy I have not mentioned is Lucien Bouchard. There was a lot about him I liked and some about him I hated. Very difficult man to follow at times with his love-hate relationship with his own Quebecois identity. He was someone I leave tpo French Quebecers to define-I just will say I don't think any of us minorities considered him anti minority or bigoted like Parizeau. He wasn't. He tried his best to bring in minorities to the PQ. Besides he hated Parizeau which makes him a good man. Lol. Back to the new NDP guy he does not speak French. Let's see how fast he can learn it.

Ah but did you get a point off forever like I did for responding to your comments earlier? Lol. Good response. Enjoyed your attempt to try spin what Parizeau said. You are his nephew admit it. Lol. Gimme a break on that puffed pseuto Parisenne bigot. As for feeling the need to quote a Jew when responding to me don't bother. Your opinions are good enough for me. The fact the person you quoted is Jewish is not relevant to his opinion-only his opinion and yours are relevant to me which brings me back to the NDP leader. He has deliberately in my opinion taken advantage of his religious identity when its suitable to him such as assuming he should get all the visible minority votes by being a visible minority. Now when he is asked where he stands within his community on the Air India bombing he called it a racist question? Why? My dear and close friend Taxme always assumes because I am a Jew my loyalty to Israel comes first. In fact I believe he has a right to ask and push me on it. Fair is fair. Assuming I would put Canada first in itself is a presumptious bigoted assumption. Challenging me on my words that may appear to put Canadian and Israeli policies in direct conflict he has a right. Then again he calls himself pro Canada but has on this board excluded most Canadians from the definition of the Canadian he supports. Now in regards to the angry minority comment you made in Quebec and anti minorities, I tend to agree with you. I am not about to smeer all Quebecois as bigots because of a vocal minority. Its why I made a point to you of saying complementary things about Levesque and Johnson. Fair is fair. There are some Pequistes that were not bigots but genuinely Quebecois nationals first. I appreciate there can be a difference but you have to understand my perception would be different than yours for obvious reasons. Then again I concede to you, I do not have the same perception of my identity being endangered as perhaps you would being aFrench Quebecer. Fair is fair we are both in that sense feeling at times as if our identities are in question. That said and herein is the irony, you do realize how well Quebecois do outside Quebec. I mean sure someone like Celine Dion assimilates but you know what else I mean. Now will Quebecois to do well outside Quebec be assimilated. I just don't know. I do know with we Jews, assimilation as in the case of all minorities is inevitable if humanity lasts long enough. For now though we have some clashes between minorities and I think the NDP leader is not going to do well in Quebec. He wants to play up his right to be visibly religious and ethnic but then if asked questions whether that comes into conflict with certain political concepts he was quick to play the race card. The press and the public have a right to test his loyalty to see if it conflicts with Canadian values. To just assume his orthodox religious beliefs are compatible and adapt an arrogant tone about it is going to blow up in his face. Every Jewish politician is accused of being a Zionist. Every Muslim politician is questioned about that. Its part of the game. To appoint a Somali refugee as Immigration Minister opened him up to questions as to whether he can be conflict free dealing with the refugee dossier let alone illegal Somalis. Its fair game. You know Quebecers-in their own weird way no one is getting a free card French or English. If he wants to be a visible minority in Quebec its not going to win him votes and once he gets outside large cities with visible minority politicians he has to expect questions about his identity and be prepared to answer them over and over even if they make wrongful assumptions. Its part of being a public figure. I personally believe he manipulates his identity to suit him and I don't buy it. I don't like his smarmy assumption people must assume because he's a visible minority it provides no conflicts. Bull crap. This man stood up in the Ontario provincial parliamenet and supported the BDS movement and militant Muslims causing a rift in his own community. His leftist policies select certain causes and exclude others. He is remarkably ignorant on many cultures reflecting his sheltered environment and lack of work experience and living in a cacoon most of his life. We have no shortage of these sheltered soft boys running in politics these days Morneau and Trudeay the trust fund puff pastries are bad enough, now we have a Punjabi puff pastry full of himself and brought up to believe his shit don't stunk as well. Privileged elitist politics. I don't like it. You know why I liked Levesque-because he was a legitimate WW2 war correspondent. He hot his hands dirty and his psyche damaged from what he witnessed. That's a real man. Pierre Trudeau who was my MP I admitted his Jesuit logic, his ability to transcend minorities and not pander to us, but he never understood the working class. Mulroney on the other hand, even though he was supposedly a conservative, played the game. He knew how to bribe and get people on side in Quebec-he was not above getting down with unions and blue collar types. I am not saying Mulroney or Trudeau were any better then one another but I am saying I think Mulroney understood labour politics a hell of a lot better than Trudeau did. Mulroney was at the table bargaining, Trudeau joined a picket line wearing a cashmere sweater and sandals for a brief sorte with the masses. I just think a pretty boy in a 2000 suit in Quebec aint gonna work.

Bringing the discussion back to the NDP, may I say to Benz given the opinions I stated above, I would have a hard time believing the new NDP leaser's naivite about his visible minority appearance won't impact on his ability to get votes in Quebec. I would be curious what you think. Personally my take on all Quebecers French or Englush including me if I was still there, is we are not uncomfortable about him being Siekh but we are uncomfortable with visible religious symbols and politics mixing and its an unresolved issue in Quebec that crosses the language line. Anglo Quebecois are no different than Franco Quebecois on this issue I think. I don't see that big a difference. It may be different for visible minority Quebecers yes. I would say this and I mean it with no disrespect to the NDP leader-I think he is naïve if he thinks his formal religious appearance is a modern left wing symbol. To me it is in fact a cultural symbol of orthodoxy and the NDP is supposed to be a socialist party and socialist regimes have traditionally been about worker's rights to good wages and jobs not religious views. We shall see. My impression having worked as a grievance rep, for a union and on the other side of the table representing management before unions, is that unions can be quite intolerant towards certain religious beliefs. Those are just my subjective opinions I concede. I just don't see anyone wearing orthodox religious symbols of any kind doing well in Quebec politics. Interestingly there was a debate that left the cross up on the National Assembly wall, but other than that as you are well aware Benz, Quebec politics detached itself from the Catholic church some say replacing it with a new religion called separatism. I was tempted to say the Catholic connection to government in Quebec was unique, but then it was pretty much the same in Newfoundland and out West in Manitoba foe example.

August arrogant? Lol. Please take that up with him and the Lembergers.. I found your comments interesting and I respect them but what's a debate board without further debate. So In regards to 3 and 4, come on Benz you never head of hostlity towards English speaking tourists outside Montreal? I have encountered it and stepped in translating for tourists many many times. Also Parizeau was a blatant bigot. Are you related to him? Come on, you do not remember his speech after he lost the referendum blaming Jews and English? I find that hard to believe. I genuinely have no idea what you mean by your stereotype generalization of "English" people not putting enough attention to the cultural products of the" French" culture. French culture is a pretty wide open category with many Francphone nations and cultures. Perhaps you would care to explain what cultural products you are talking about and whether you in fact meant French Quebecois cultural products. What are they exactly? Do you mean music or television unique to Quebec or something else? All I know is if you speak French as a mother tonque but you are not Purelaines in fact your French culture is rejected in Quebec. Ask any North Africa, i.e., Tunisian, Moroccan, Algerian, or how about you speak to Haitiens or Africans from Cameroun, Chad, Niger, Ivory Ghost, Central African Republic, Senegal, Congo, etc., who came to Quebec. You think their French cultural products have been accepted? As for saying the English had all the jobs that is not true.. English didn't have all the jobs. What you probably meant to say is English were heavily represented in upper management white collar jobs in, banking, financial institutions and mines. No Jews, Irish, Chinese, Greeks, Italians, blacks, other minorities who spoke English had those jobs any more than many French Quebecers didn't. The fact is though majority of jobs outside the financial sector have always gone to non Anglos precisely because Anglos have always been a minority outside Montreal as you are well aware and even in Montreal and Hull where they would be concentrated they did not hold the majority of jobs. In regards to your comments about unilungualism outside West Montreal and Hull Quebec was, is and has always been UNILUNGUAL French. Its never been and never will be bilingual. Also with due respect this utopia between English and French in Quebec is crap. There has been a tension since 1867 and the constitution which sought to try balance that tension, may in fact unintentionally enshrined it by creatjng two equally conflicted components. As for the French in Quebec there identity struggle has always been to be the "maitres chez nous", masters of their own futures One last comment I stand corrected on the Johnson brothers. I actually meant Pierre Marc Johnson as wel as Rene Levesque being a good Premier. I am able to separate by disliking of seperatism from separatists who were respectful of all Quebecers. I also told you I have a pronounced bias for the current Premier. I am not sure what world you live in, but the one I lived in, in Quebec, dealt with discrimination based not just on language, but skin colour, religion, perceived ethnic status. Its why so many of us minorities left and its why so many French speaking visible minorities in Quebec today like Latinos, Hatiens, North Africans, other Africans, Vietnamese who speak French, have to watch themselves and are always aware of their secondary status. Don't speak for them or English Quebecers. They and I do feel second class in Quebec and its why I left. I have zero problem with speaking French. I have major problems how minorities are treated in Quebec in the guise of protecting Quebecois culture.. The world I live in, English language is reduced to second level status in Quebec and no English don't appreciate that or how we are treated by Purelaines or Quebec separatists. Been there done that with the language police. Ask a Hatiens or Tunisian, or Morrocan or Algerian, or someone from Senegal, Chad, Niger, Ivory Coast, or other former French colonies what its like living in Quebec. I can not speak for them. You think Purelaines are buying into their French cultural products as you call them? By the way I would love to know what a a unique Quebecois cultural product is. Other than music or television or film, which I get, I'd love to hear your examples. By the way you are of course correct if you say the two solitudes in Quebec meant English did not identify with French television or music per se although you'd be surprised how many of us young non Quebecois Quebecers loved French music and art. It transcended the solitudes at times. Certainly Les Canadiens all joking aside, was the ONE Quebecois cultural product everyone bought into. When Maurice Richard symbolized a Quebecer being the best at something in North America and when Les Canadiens won those cups, the Richards, Cournoyer, Beliveau, Bouchard, Geoffion, etc., and Harvey, Morenz, Mahovolich, Worsley, Duff, Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Harris, we could have cared less whether they were English or French, once the CH went on there was no solitude. For me its hard to think of specific Quebecois cultural products other than Les Canadiens, television and music. Don't you dare say smoked meat or bagels. My people brought that to Quebec! Putaines you can have yes. Seriously? I mean there are unique musicians and television programs in Quebec but other then that what would you say? I found your comments interesting. Appreciate your perspective. You can see I am not anti Quebec at all, but I do think some forms of Quebecois identity border on racism or ethnic intolerance. In regards to the visible minority symbols like the hijab in a weird way I have tried to explain to people it at one level may be intolerant but on another level is meant to apply to all people including Christians so it is too complex to point out as being anti any one culture or religion. I think Quebecois have been able to couch certain anti semitic or anti Muslim or anti black sentiments in the name of cultural protection but certainly not all Quebecois. I also appreciate that Quebecois feel French is in danger of assimilation by all of North America not just Canada. Well I am not sure if a language law discriminating against English will protect against such assimilation. I believe myself a string culture survives no matter what the laws of the day and of course one natural factor-birth rate of people in that culture. If Quebecois don;t reproduce no language law will prevent French from common use in Quebec.

In regards to negative behaviour I mean unhealthy or violent behaviour is what I mean by negative, i.e., eating junk food, depicting people without certain products as losers, smelly, ugly, depicting violence as cool. Yes on last comment

Interesting comments. I do think its still mainstream thinking to believe there is a direct correlation between advertising and getting people to engage in negative behaviour. As for smoking predating advertising so did sex. Your point> The media and advertising showcases behaviours and beliefs that might have otherwise not been known o r so widespread. You think smoking became more widespread after it was shown in movies? You think its coincidence products are or were strategically placed in movies, tv shows and advertising? Advertising is a way to influence behaviour and decision making and value formation. If it wasn't people would not spend billions on molding messages to get people to buy certain things. Tele-evangelists are the most obvious example of turning a sermon into a commercial to pay the sermonizer. Its no different than Dr. Ho the Chiropactor coming on t..v. selling his pain pad to an adoring audience or some guy selling the latest cooking device to an adoring audience or some has been Hollywood star being used on an infomercial to sell some beauty product.