jefferiah

You may be right about it not causing the sky to fall. But it shows something you may not understand about leadership. When you bend in one aspect for one person, you have to bend for another person. You keep asking why should it be so hard for us to change for them. Conversely why should the onus to change our ways be on us, whether it is hard or easy. Why should it not be on the one who has decided he wants to join our society. If you go to a certain person's house and they have a rule about wearing a ball cap inside that is their business. It is their house. I could argue about the meaningless of a ball cap and its relevancy to respect all I like, but it is still their house. Respect dictates then when I enter their house I ought to take my cap off, even though I do not have a similar rule in my own house. If I am lucky enough to be allowed to enter a wonderful house like Canada or America, why should I cry discrimination over every rule I do not like or ask them to change laws which govern the majority to suit myself. I am not saying we should be mean to immigrants. But we should not be push-overs either. Everytime you become a push-over about things like this (as meaningless as they sound to you) you set the precedent that people do not have to respect you and rather than be grateful toward you or society as a whole, they feel that that ought to make demands on you or society as a whole.

deleted

Well, I was unsure about what Mike David was saying as well. But may I point out to you that if 77 percent figure is correct, then it is also inevitably true that 53 percent of Canadians said this. Mike David has 7 children---half of them are boys. How is this possible?

Debatable I suppose. Anyhow, the point is there is a fine line between saying people should act Canadian and that they should conform to our laws rather than complain about them when they come. No one is saying immigrants should be forced to like hockey and give up a Hindu god. All we are saying is that they should not complain about every law that isnt on par with their opinion. A little girl gets in trouble because of the paring knife she brought in her lunch kit for her apple, and yet a court tells a Quebec school that they were out of line for forbidding Sikh kids to wear daggers to school. God forbid someone in the school admin would have thought it was wrong to allow people to carry knives on their belts. Racist pigs!!!

Asking someone to wear the uniform of the occupation is not asking someone to give up his or her religion, Dancer. If they do not like the RCMP uniform, they don't have to apply. If I don't like what Scientology teaches, I don't have to join the faith. I am not going to ask them to change their dogma to suit my needs.

I remember that at the time that the turban was allowed their was a great outcry from Canadians all over about this, and I still hear it today, among friends and neighbours. So perhaps people should also complain and ask that action be taken against the many average Canadians who happen to be of the opinion that people who come to this country should not try to change its rules to suit them.

What difference does it make if they are part and parcel of law. Being a lawyer is not the same as being in the army or the police force is it? The lawyer does not really have a uniform, unless you count the gown and if you want to add a hat that is fine. I am sure there would be no objection to a lawyer wearing a turban either. The police already have a hat. That is part of the uniform. Are candlestick makers required to wear a uniform at all? Some friends of mine could argue that the Habs jersey is a part of my religion. But nonetheless. Why should it matter if it is part of some religion? I am guessing you are part of that faction of society that believes where government institutions are involved religion ought to be checked at the door. Well how about a little consistency. If I have to check my Bible at the door (which I keep unsharpened by the way), what is wrong with expecting a Sikh to keep his dagger checked at the door. The police uniform is the police uniform. If you are lucky enough to come to this country you should be able to abide by the rules rather than whine about them.

But the only issue you seem to have any focus on is marijuana. Why should I vote for you? Once you have legalized then what? We all get high and everything in life is grand? Yes, we need to smoke pot to get in touch. Of course. Seriously anyone whose main platform is marijuana is not fit to be a leader in my opinion.

Do Italians demand Gucci uniforms when they join the RCMP?

The turbans on mounties is an excellent point. The mountie uniform is the mountie uniform. That should be the way it is. There is no law against wearing a turban, but when you work for a job that requires a certain uniform you should not expect that organization to change its rules on your behalf. He makes a good point that probably a good percentage of Canadians agree with. It's not racist to expect people to abide by the rules of our society when they come here. It's common sense. It's silly that these people want some sort of action taken against this man because he expects that our society should expect people to conform to it a little rather than try to change our laws to suit themselves. They cannot handle him having his rather reasonable opinion put out on the air, so they must take some kind of action, rather than provide a reasonable debate, to which there is none. If I were him I would not apologize. He is not saying they have to act stereotypically Canadian all day long or anything. They can practice any culture they want in their own time. But if you want to be an RCMP you wear the same uniform that the rest of the RCMP have to wear. Simple as that. No special treatment. I can't wear my Habs jersey as a military uniform. Doesn't sound like the words of a bad role model, but a person whose idea of fairness has not been warped by the left. Good on him.

A Halal meal was provided. Two eggs, three pieces of toast, breakfast cereal and beverages.

Now back to Jennie, who has danced around and avoided my question, pretended to be ignorant of its meaning, etc. Jennie, since you support lawsuits in cases of insult and offense, would you then support the lawsuit of a white person who took offense at a derogatory or demeaning comment about white people?

Once again though you are comparing something like spanking to a perceived insult. No deal Xul. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe I am better than homosexuals, because I have committed my own sins. But I do believe it is a sin. Now do you think I should have to pay someone for speaking my conscience on this matter? Believing something is wrong for everyone is not self-righteousness by the way. Self-righteousness means you believe that you are more righteous than someone else. Believing that something is wrong does not necessarily mean you believe you are more righteous than someone who does that thing. Suppose John beat up an old lady, and Joe beat up a man in a wheelchair. Now they are both doing time for assault. I go to prison and ask John is it ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair. What do you expect him to say? Would it be self-righteous of him to say that it is not ok to beat up a man in a wheelchair when he beat up an old lady? Of course not, it would be silly for him to say otherwise. What would be self-righteous is for him to claim that even though he did not do what Joe did, that he is somehow better than Joe when he did something equally vicious. But recognizing or believing something is wrong is not self-righteous. And even in a case of self-righteousness, I don't think having a self-righteous attitude (though not desirable) should ever be punished by law. Now Xul who do you think gets to decide what level of insult is harmful and which isn't? How do we decide whether something is offnesive or not? Should it be up to the person who feels he is offended? Basically offensive speech is guaged by how offended someone claims to feel? Some people seek to find offense everywhere.

If you remember Xul, I did not agree with what Mike David said to you. But nonetheless I support his right to say it, whether you take offense to it or not. The thing is, even though you say you do not take offense to it, you would support a legal system which would deal with the situation if someone had made a complaint about Mike David speaking his mind, when in fact no one ever sustained any real calculable damage from his words.

Once again I will point out to you Kuzadd. This meal was served on Wednesdays. Three pieces of toast, two eggs, beverages, breakfast cereal----all Halal. Three pieces of bacon not Halal. No bacon for me please. A complete meal was provided. If someone does not like a certain corner of his plate in the meal served on Thursday should he get a replacement?

I still disagree Xul. The law deals in tangibles like broken windows. It is not the place of the law to deal with whether speech is offensive. I would not deny the right of a man to collect on his broken window, I would deny the right of a man to collect funds based on the fact that he found something someone said to be hateful or offensive. I can see a broken window. I can tally the costs of the damages of a broken window. Sticks and stones may break your windows Xul, but names can never hurt you.

Jennie, you seem to be having some difficulty with a rather simple question. If you support a lawsuit filed by a person offended by comments made about a demographic to which he belongs, would you then support a lawsuit filed by a white person who was offended by a derogatory comment made about white people?

So far no one has cited a Kosher case in Canada. Also in the American case no one has cited what the meals provided were. In this case the only thing not Halal was three strips of bacon. To me, given the size of the breakfast aside from that, you could easily compare that to not eating your coleslaw. But perhaps in these other cases the pork was more prominent in the meals so that it was impossible to be nourished without breaking Halal or Kosher laws.

It was provided, Buffycat. Two eggs, three pieces of toast, breakfast cereal, beverages, and three pieces of bacon he can easily refuse. Everything besides the bacon is Halal. If for some reason another prisoner does not like bacon they are not going to cook a salmon just for him. Or if some other fellow hates the kinds of jam they provide with the toast he can skip out on the jam. People who are not in prison make lemonade when life gives them lemons. What is wrong with expecting prisoners to do so?

Sure I would. Of course it would depend upon the details of the case as well. This meal was served every Wednesday I think. A good size breakfast plus three slices of bacon. Once again that is two eggs, three pieces of toast, breakfast cereal, beverages, etc. I don't care if the guy is Muslim, Jewish, Scientologist, etc. All he has to do is say no bacon for me. That's it. If the prisoner were Jewish I would expect him to do the same.

I never said anything about jailing them or that they should be jailed. I don't know if Wilbur said that either. But I would never vote for a party based on this issue alone. If all you seem to be interested in is pots legalization, what are you going to do about the other facets of life that do not include marijuana. They do exist you know.

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Wilbur. Pffft everyone knows you have to go to the pro-cannabis sites to get the real scoop on marijuana. That's where you will find out the truth about how marijuana makes you a better driver and cures diseases miraculously.

lol People could take a lesson from you in how to deal with being offended. Seriously, everybody thinks everybody should be forced to condone everything everybody does nowadays.

Just for the record though BushCheney, I never said that was my belief, I said people have said it. And apparently its not an outrage to say these things about Americans. I dont see anyone being sued for it.

Perhaps I should have clarified that then, BushCheney. I meant it in this sense....George Bush or Americans in general.... Better?