jefferiah

When I was a kid and we had to draw pictures for Rememberance Day, nearly everyone drew a cross on a mound with a poppy sort of thing. And the words lest we forget. If some kid draws a picture of Mohammed over in Arabian school do you get your panties in a knot?

Bullshit. You say its an easy change for either side. But it is the Sikhs who should make the change, not majority society for their benefit. That is brass, bold and disrespectful. When I went to the synagogue I was required to wear the yarmulke. Had I been Sikh it would have been the same. When a Sikh visits a Synagogue should he say well my rule says I must wear ithe turban and have that over-rule the synagogues rule. Of course not. That is completely ridiculous JB Globe. No one is banning yarmulkes or turbans at all either. So stop spouting off this nonsense about freedom of culture. The Sikhs had a rule about turbans and the RCMP had a rule about uniform. When an RCMP wants to become a Sikh and go to a Sikh wedding, he can wear the turban required. When a Sikh wants to become an RCMP he can don the uniform. When work is done he can put his turban back on. Simple as that. We do not have to meet them halfway. It is a nice thing to do, but the onus is on them to do the meeting. The fact that we allow religious freedoms some countries don't is already meeting them halfway. There is no reason for anyone to complain. No one is saying you can't wear a yarmulke. But when you get a job at McDonald's would you refuse to wear the visor and demand you get to wear your yarmulke? You wouldnt at all. Cmon JB Globe you know that is complete BS. You have a brain in there somewhere. I am sure of it. As for crosses on Rememberance Day, like it or not it is a symbol of Rememberance Day, because the poppies blow beneath crosses row on row. It has always been a symbol of Rememberance Day. How about you go complain to Saudi Arabia about having a Koranic verse on their flag. Move to Arabia and make a stink about that?

No is saying that we should impose a set of cultural practices. We are saying that when people come here they should not start demanding we accomodate all of theirs in every facet of life. There are no laws against being Hindu, or Sikh, etc. There is no law against placing a mat on the floor and doing Shikan Taza or Koan Zazen. Everything is allowed here. Probably moreso than where most people came from. But why should we be expected to remove the Crosses from a Rememberance day display because a few people demand it. That is ridiculous and frivolous. And the RCMP uniform is not enforcing a cultural practice upon people. It is a uniform you have to wear when on duty, and then it is over. If you wanted to join the Australian navy I am sure you would wear their uniform. It would be brass bold and disrespectful to demand they change their uniform for you. I know you would never do that Renegade. Then why do you feel it is necessary to cave in to others. My bet is that you are afraid of being called a bigot, whether that assessment is truth or not. But I could care less what people think. I know that there is nothing racist about expecting a person who wants to join the RCMP to wear a uniform that "everyone else" is required to wear.

You are twisting logic there Jennie. She is not saying a Sikh can't be RCMP and you know it. And people are smart enough to see through this crap you are spouting. What she is saying is that a Sikh can wear the required uniform of an RCMP, or else not be one. Simple as that. It is not an unreasonable demand, Jennie. And when work is done, Pooof! on comes the turban again. Simple as that! You are going to have to find a new line besides screaching racism, because people are too smart to buy into that now. It's over. People are smart enough to make the distinction. The uniform of the RCMP is not a Christian uniform or a Muslim uniform or a Scientologist uniform. It is a Canadian uniform. There is no favoritism there. Everyone is expected to wear it if they want to be an RCMP. It's not discrimination. It applies to everyone. Simple as that. And when everyone goes home they get to wear what they like to.

Inciting violence is already a crime. But the man whose case I referred to you did not incite violence. He said gays are the people like everyone else and they should be able to have jobs like everyone else, etc, but personally I am a catholic and I believe it is a sin. Now he did not make a call to violence against homosexuals. He was quite respectful and mild about delivering this opinion. And yet you still say you support this case against him. He was asked his opinion in an interview and he gave it. Oh and by the way, a question just rose in my mind: If a white man were exposed to an offensive comment about white people, would you support him in a lawsuit against the person who made the offense?

Yes people who do not like being insulted have the same rights as everyone else. But that does not mean it is their right to censor someone else's speech because it insults them. It is no one's right to demand that everyone else say things that they like. But they have the right to say what they like in return. If someone insults me, Xul, it does not infringe upon any of rights. My rights are still intact. And no, you are wrong there, anti-hatred laws are only in place for certain protected groups. Mike would not have the right to charge them with a hate crime unless he belongs to a protected group. Now, Xul, do you think it was right that verses from the Bible referring to homosexuality as sin were deemed hate literature by courts? You say that free speech should end when it comes to insulting others. The problem with that Xul, is that then hatred becomes guaged by how offended a person is. You can argue that this is not exactly what you mean, but you are not handling every case. You allow the argument to be made. The reality is that people sue over minor insults all the time claiming that their feelings were hurt etc. Perhaps you don't understand how bad this is sometimes. Even though you said you were not offended by what Mike David said to you, you would support the right of someone else to sue him for large amounts of cash over the same thing (if they were insulted by it). Do you think that is realistic, Xul? I am not praising insults. But there is no one here who has not insulted someone. No one. Do you think we should all be subject to legal punishment for it?

You seem to have trouble understanding what we are saying. No one is saying that you cannot wear a yarmulke or a turban. There is no law against wearing either, JB Globe. Do you understand? There is no law against me wearing a Montreal Canadiens t shirt either, but when I am employed at Mc Donald's I must wear their uniform and for a hat I wear the visor (not a blue jays cap, not a yarmulke, not a turban). If I do not like what McDonalds demands of me, then I do not have to accept employment from them. As simple as that. I do not own the company, so I do not get to make the rules for them. Do you understand, JB Globe. Is this really all that hard to comprehend? Is your skull that thick? No is talking about arresting people who wear yarmulkes or people who don't watch hockey night in Canada. Can't you make a simple distinction, between denying people the right to have their culture and expecting them to wear the uniform everyone else must wear for a certain position. When you get home from work at Mc Donalds you can take off your McDonalds visor, and "Poof!" on comes your turban, your yarmulke, your blue jays cap, etc. It is not overly demanding that people who come here from minority cultures respect our rules. The rules do not forbid people to wear turbans or yarmulkes. But certain jobs do have uniforms. I dont get to pick and choose the uniforms. A few years back JB I went to a synagogue to see what it was like. I really enjoyed the experience and I found the people were really friendly to me. When I arrived there for the service, no one else had shown up yet. It was me and the Rabbi. He asked me a few questions and he udnderstood that I had never been there before. Then he brought me a yarmulke to wear and told me I must wear this. So I put it on and wore it, and I enjoyed the service. Simple as that. Do you understand? A blue jays cap would have been inappropriate in this situation right? But because I had to wear a yarmulke and not a blue jays cap, it does not mean the Rabbi was taking away my right to express my love of baseball. It is just that here you wear the yarmulke. And when you leave Temple, well then you can wear whatever you please. And if I have a problem with wearing yarmulkes I dont have to make a stink to the rabbi about my rights and how he is a big inconsiderate jerk, etc etc, I can simply choose not to go to the synagogue, right. Do you see how simple that is, JB? Are you getting it yet? Is it necessary to keep repeating this over and over and over JB Globe, before it sinks in that there is quite a difference between what you are suggesting we are saying and what we are saying?

But Canadian law does not forbid people from wearing turbans or yarmulkes or saris or kimonos. However when you work at Wal Mart you dont wear a Sari or Kimono, do you. You can't wear your baseball cap either. Or your favourite hockey team tshirt. You wear the smock. When work is done, you can change back into the kimono, the sari, or the t-shirt. Or you can find a job where they allow you to wear a kimono, etc. Do you see the distinction there, M Dancer. The rules here are not overly demanding. No one is saying turbans are not allowed. But when you are an RCMP you ought to wear the uniform that everyone else must wear. That is not unfair. It is what everyone else must wear on the job. And when work is done, you can change into your normal clothes just like Canadians of all ethnicities do. Simple as that, whether its a tshirt that says Molson Canadian or a Burqa. They have more freedom here than they probably did back there (wherever that is), so there is nothing to complain about.

There is also a line in the Bible which says we are to pray at all times. Do they sleep with their dagger on? Seriously. come off it Melanie. You know it is not a big demand that they remove it for school purposes. I say if they don't like those rules they can leave.

JB Globe you are jumping to extreme conclusions based upon nothing at all. Speaking of Argus you say he hates anyone who is not a white Christian. This is totally off base, since I am reading the same thread and I have not heard him say this. What I have heard him say is that he is of the belief that immigrants who come to this country should do more adapting than we should to them. That makes perfectly good sense to me. If you had a rule in your house that said "do not wear your shoes inside my living room" and I have a rule in my house which says "its ok to wear your shoes inside", then when I go to your house I will not complain about your rule because of the fact that in my house it is done differently. It was almost a year ago that crosses were yanked from a classroom Rememberance Day display, because of some complaints. You understand that whether you are Christian or not, the fact still remains that in Flanders Fields the poppies blow beneath the "crosses" row and row. And the cross therefore has become a symbol along with the poppy of Rememberance Day. It has always been this way in Canada, so why should we change it for someone else. I don't think it is rude of us to not change. I think it is rude to come to a new country and demand that the country change just for you. It's brass, bold and disrespectful. Would you move to a new country and complain about every little law which does not suit your fancy? I really don't think you would. The example of the RCMP turbans was perfect, although as Jennie said it is old hat. Nonetheless, it is ridiculous that a minority should place the demand on us that we change the rules for them when everyone else has to wear the uniform. Or Sikhs wearing Kirpans to school. Do you think that the only reason imaginable for people to be outraged over the fact that Sikh's are allowed to wear kirpans to school (while a girl in grade three was reprimanded for having a paring knife in her lunchkit) is that they are all white supremacists. This seems to be the convenient and shallow argument you use for everyone who does not agree with you. Where are your little grey cells? There is nothing racist about expecting people to follow our rules, which allow a great deal of freedom (in many cases a great deal more than the country from which they came). We are not stealing people's culture away by asking them not to wear a Burqa while voting. A sikh could still be a Sikh if he left his dagger outside the classroom. You understand that in our society people are not allowed to bring knives to school and therefore.....But this is not preventing them from being Sikhs. It is a reasonable demand. It is not racist. You are going to have to find a better argument than to scream "racist bigot white supremacist" every time someone disagrees with you, because it is not working. Most people are smart enough not to buy into this nonsense.

Well, maybe I do and maybe I don't, but the fact remains, Sir, that I am not the one expecting people to vote for me.

temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum, temper tantrum....

Of course law rules in a country. But because law is not perfect it should only deal in the more important matters. The speech of individuals should never come under the power of the government. Who has the right to be such a teacher? If the speech is a threat or a call to violence against a particular person or group, then it is already a crime--perhaps this would cover the destroy Israel case. Saying "Jews are Satan", while I would think it is not a very nice thing to say, should never be punishable by law. It is an insult. You make the comparison to what happened in Germany. But insulting someone and actually doing something are two different things. I do not agree with insulting someone, on a personal level. But there is not one of us here who has not been guilty of that. And if you take away all the meaningless crap about race and protected groups....why should it be any different if it is a race or a group which is insulted, or even an individual human being. There is no one who is free from this. And I cannot speak on behalf of Jewish people, but I know a few (and I am sure there are quite a few) who agree with me on the free speech issue. In fact I think there are a few who would say they would rather have free speech so that people's racism does not get whitewashed over, and in this way they can figure out who is a Nazi or not and allow them to make an ass of themselves. On the level of individual insult people have called George Bush Satan, or the antiChrist. As for calling homosexuality sin, you say that what I said was a fact. Many people are not religious though and to them it is not a fact. But even so, I don't think it should matter. Whether the morality of it is fact or simply opinion. People are entitled to having a moral opinion and to profess that opinion. This is freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. And as long as all they are doing is having it and professing it (not committing violence or calling for crimes to be committed) it does not in anyway infringe upon someone else's right to disagree and to say the complete opposite and do the complete opposite. But none of this matters. Even though you agree with me on this matter, people can be sued for saying they believe homosexuality is a sin. A line in the Bible which refers to homosexuality as "unnatural relations" has been deemed hate literature as well.

A few years ago some Natives were pelting my brothers car with rocks with my 8 year old nephew inside.

Yeah come off it now, Sharkman. Stop hurting people with your views. You could put an eye out.

He cancels his own conservative vote, and for some reason I dont think he votes conservative anyway.

Why can't ScottSA and the Little Cheerleader just get along?

By nature Jennie a movie is never truth, even when it is based on a true story. It is a re-enactment of events constructed by people who have their own take on them. I did not see it though, so I don't know. As for respecting the Mohawk warriors, I think that whenever they come marching by we all ought to salute them---Salmon Arm style.

There's your single vote Shavluk! A coup might work better for you.

It seems you have been by this thread a few times since I asked you a very simple question and yet you were somehow unable to answer it. I wonder why. Perhaps you missed it. Here I will help you out. JENNIE, IF A PERSON WHO (FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES) WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS A WHITE PERSON WERE TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST A PERSON WHO MADE DEMEANING COMMENTS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS THAT HE WAS OFFENDED, WOULD YOU THEN SUPPORT THAT LAWSUIT?

This is what was mentioned in your original post about what this fellow said and it is a perfect example of how Canada is a push-over nation. And I said that was a perfectly reasonable example. Despite your claims that this is not how Canada thinks, I know quite few Canadians who agree with this. I am sure most of my neighbours do, and it seems a good faction of the posters also agree with me. So the point we are making is that this fellow is not such a bad example for having this opinion and speaking it. Why is it so horrible to be of the opinion that immigrants should not come here demanding changes? If someone came to my house with this sort of attitude instead of being respectful, I would say the same thing. Look, if you don't like it, take a hike.

Gentlemen prefer blondes but they marry brunettes, I am told. Nah, but I have always been attracted to brunettes more over all. I don't think there is anything special about that either, except I have had more crushes on good looking brunettes. Personally I find hair color irrelevant or skin color. Another thing is I like a person's natural color more then a dyed color. Shiny black hair looks perfect on an asian girl. It looks good on Monica Bellucci too.

You went bald at age 13?

In a school the teacher is the boss of what subjects are to be discussed. Life is different. When you are not in school you do not have to abide by this. The teacher's ruling is also not a rule of law. A teacher cannot fine a child 5000 dollars for saying something. Now I have said Xul that I believe homosexuality is a sin, do you think that I should owe money to anyone who is offended by this? I have a friend who is teaching school in China. Apparently he can be reprimanded if he ever mentions Tian An Men Square to his Social Studies class. Jennie, still waiting on an answer to my question.

Asking people to wear the required uniform of the RCMP or to remove their dagger before attending school is not undue pressure to fit in. No one is saying that they have to watch Hockey Night In Canada and act Canadian or whatnot. Just respect our laws instead of demanding that we change things in their special case. That is pretty simple, and since they are lucky enough to come here, I dont think it is too much to ask that they be respectful and not whiney. What does this have to do with feminism anyway? We arent talking about feminism. You have a way of getting really off base with things. Because we think that Sikhs should be required to wear the same uniform everyone else has to, you think we are afraid of equality. That is ridiculous Jennie.